Talk:Cliff Warner and Nina Cortlandt

Cultural impact section
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: -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 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). I will take care of (i.e., remove) the most obvious neutrality issues shortly.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.


 * Thank you for your insight, Black Falcon. I will do all that I can to better this article. Flyer22 07:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)