This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soap Operas, an effort to build consistent guidelines for and improve articles about soap operas and telenovelas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit WikiProject Soap Operas, where you can join the project and/or the discussion.Soap OperasWikipedia:WikiProject Soap OperasTemplate:WikiProject Soap Operassoap opera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Flyer22's rewriting of the article, especially the addition of the "Cultural impact" section, is really the only reason that the article was not deleted. The version that was nominated would surely have produced a consensus to delete. However, the section still requires cleanup, particularly in three respects:
Neutrality. Statements like "a famous American daily newspaper", "a well-respected soap opera magazine", "a popular official soap opera site", and the like do not represent a neutral point of view. Words like "famous", "well-respected", and "popular" must be removed or attributed to a source (see WP:NPOV#A simple formulation). I will take care of (i.e., remove) the most obvious neutrality issues shortly.
Original research. Statements like "Cliff and Nina's romance enthralled viewers so thoroughly" and "Perhaps to sum up the public's fascination with the Cliff and Nina romance" are likely original opinions and require rewording to reflect information provided in sources.
Avoid trivia sections. Once more pressing concerns of neutrality, attributability, and notability have been taken care of, the section should ideally be de-bulleted and the individual items of information integrated into coherent paragraphs.
