Talk:The Girl Who Had Everything

"Synopsis" and "Plot summary"
Two sections covering essentially the same encyclopedic content are not needed for this article. Either title can be used, but the these sections should be combined together. I haven't seem the film so I not sure which details are pertinent, but a "plot summary/synopsis" should generally just be a general summary of the main plot points of the film as explained in MOS:PLOT and MOS:FILMPLOT; it's doesn't really need to go into too much excessive detail or a scene-by-scene account of the film per WP:PLOTSUMNOT. It should also be balanced with the rest of the article; so, that the entire article is not essentially just one big plot summary with a few other smaller sections about other aspects of the film. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * , I think the "Synopsis" section could be merged into the lead section, and "Plot summary" kept as a body section (and renamed to "Plot"). The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article body per WP:LEAD, so it stands to reason that it should briefly state what the film is about, in addition to other key facts. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to expand the lead section to better summarize the main points of the article, but I'm not sure if adding a plot summary to it is the best thing to do per WP:FILMLEAD. For sure, the major persons behind the film's development, major actors, any major awards it received, any controversies it caused, etc. would probably be fine; however, I don't think it's a good idea for plot points to be added. If you look at some examples in WP:FA, you're probably not going to find many (if any) that do this other than perhaps a brief sentence on themes, etc. I didn't check every FA about a film, but the few I did had no such content in their leads.The "Plot summary" section is currently the largest section in the article which seems to throw (in my opinion) a bit out of balance; this might mean that it one way to improve the article overall would be to trim some of that sections content regardless of where you put. The content was also added by a WP:SPA in a burst of editing by being WP:BOLD; there's nothing wrong with either being BOLD or an SPA, but that doesn't automatically mean it should be kept. Again, I haven't seen the film, but if you or someone else has and can trim things down a bit, then perhaps that would be a start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." You can't have a lead section without at least briefly stating what the film is about. It can be one or two sentences. The "Synopsis" section is close enough to that. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think it can be done or should be done, then you can be WP:BOLD and do so. That would resolve the "redundant" section, but there would still be a fairly bloated plot summary left (in my opinion) which still seems to be a more of a problem per PLOTSUMNOT than not. One of the things about plot summaries per se is that they are for all intents and purposes sourced to the film itself, not usually secondary sources. If you've seen the film and feel this particular plot summary is not too excessively detailed, than that's fine. It seems as such to me and thus seems to throw the article out of balance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The ending us incorrect.
The ending scene does not include Vance at all. It is Jean and her father who reconcile and embrace. Vance is not mentioned at all. 96.224.220.103 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)