Talk:Todd Manning

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Todd Manning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215010941/http://onelifetolive.about.com/od/pollscommentaries/a/Kaydees-Sassy-Soap-Corner-A-Weekly-Commentary-For-Oltl-For-January-3-2012.htm to http://onelifetolive.about.com/od/pollscommentaries/a/Kaydees-Sassy-Soap-Corner-A-Weekly-Commentary-For-Oltl-For-January-3-2012.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140712211248/http://onelifetolive.about.com/od/recaps/a/052906recaps.htm to http://onelifetolive.about.com/od/recaps/a/052906recaps.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

I took a look at this for WP:URFA/2020; here are my comments from a quick glance, Figureskatingfan. For an article with 14,000+ words the FAC seems shockingly light. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but:

• I found it odd so many sources lean on the self-published side (About.com, etc.). Is there not commentary available from published sources instead? Llanview Online doesn't seem like a high-quality source, for example.
• Some articles from magazines are missing page numbers. What about volume, issue?
• Timestamps on television episodes would be helpful.
• ""Roger Howarth Appearance". Live! with Regis and Kathie Lee. May 1994." → how is someone supposed to verify this? there is no timestamp or even a broadcast date.

Heartfox (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Heartfox, I will try and answer your questions. I'm not sure what you mean by the FAC seeming light. Is that because there were only four supports? At this point in my WP editing career, I worked hard at making sure that it was ready for FAC. Which is was, I think. It was promoted, even with the fewer reviewers.

Yes, many of the sources are reviews of OLTL, often in blogs on sites like about.com. That's the nature of the medium, I think. One of challenges of this article was the fact that much of the commentary about Todd was published in soap opera mags that were never archived on the web. We included less reliable sources like Llanview Online because that's what we were able to find in order to be comprehensive. The FAC reviewers noted that and accepted our explanation. Many of the magazines were at one time owned by the article's other writer, the late, great Flyer22 Reborn (gad, I miss her so much), but were disposed of by the time we worked on it. Again, the reviewers didn't seem to mind. We also weren't able to find broadcast dates of individual episodes (the good people on YouTube didn't include them) and the Live! episode.

Our experience in working on this article is similar to the experiences and challenges of other articles that live in the gender gap here on WP. It meant that we were driven to technically not the most reliable sources because the sources that discuss topics like soap opera characters are non-traditional, even during Todd's time on OLTL. Then these sources are often lost or not easily assessable. I don't think that means articles that focus on topics like this shouldn't be FAs; it behooves the WP community to take those things into account and assume good faith that the editors of these articles are doing the best they could. I think that Flyer would agree, since her legacy is articles like this. (BTW, I really wished that General Hospital would've brought Todd back, now that they killed off Howarth's character Franco, but I understand why they can't. They'd be stupid not to recast Howarth as Drew Cane, though. My apologies for the tangent, but I'm such a big fan. I wish Flyer were still around so we could dish about that, even though she wasn't a fan of GH like I am.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Figureskatingfan: Yeah I'm just saying because (based on my experience), depending on the reviewer, this might not pass a source review today as some of the sources don't really seem reliable. I completely agree that "high quality" sources or whatever sometimes seems to be the only thing focused on in reviews and how the comprehensiveness of the article would be impacted is never taken into consideration. I think a lot of people do not understand how difficult it is to write FA-worthy articles aside from war and history topics so congratulations on the article as it is. The gender gap is definitely real and I've also noticed a race gap. So many articles about Black celebrities/TV shows etc. are embarrassingly lackluster. It's quite sad. BTW I looked at your article for Mom & Me & Mom to write The Meaning of Mariah Carey (not done yet) as I had never written a book article before so thanks for the influence :P Heartfox (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Yes, that would be the systemic bias that's also an unfortunate reality here in WP-land. It's nice to see that you're doing your part, like so many, to mitigate its effect. The more of us who are dedicated to doing something about it, the better it will get. I'm so glad that Dr. Angelou and I could help you write about Mariah. Please let me know how I can help, like with a GAN review or a copyedit. BTW, one of the ways to fight bias is to have well-reasoned arguments about why it's necessary to break policies and procedures. Reviewers tend to be fellow content editors, so they're usually reasonable. I can help with that if you need it, too. My favorite WP policy is WP:IAR, and it exists for a reason. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)