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
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 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 Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Meena Jutla/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
The article has degraded in quality. At the time of the GAN, the character had clearly been in the show for a short period; now, the plot summary section has ballooned in size. Its adherence to the fiction guidelines is highly questionable. Wikipedia does not need to include extensive commentary by the actor on every single action taken by the character - see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Thus, it fails 1b and 3b of the good article criteria.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest removing the comments of the actress to the characterisation section, and leaving the 'Development' section solely for a much more condensed fictional biography. Otherwise, the article continues to conflate "the context of the production and the context of the original work", as defined at MOS:PLOT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of a development section is for the development of the character and their storylines using information made available by sources and the actress. If I were to shorten it down to a fictional biog, it'd be a plot section and have less real-world information. Yet the issue here is that it is supposedly all plot?
Another point – perhaps you aren't familiar with soaps like I am so I'll give you context. She was in the soap for 2 years and it broadcasts 6 episodes per week, so she had a lot of screentime – this article does not cover everything and only ever her major plots that received coverage from third-party sources. I fail to understand how this article goes off-topic. I've took on board the comments about it being too detailed and condensed unimportant info, but asking me to remove a whole ton of commentary feels counterproductive to the qualify of the article. – DarkGlow • 23:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkGlow: I'm not saying that the real-world information should be removed from the article, I'm saying that the fictional biography should be separated from the actress' commentary on events. Per MOS:REALWORLD, "articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should use the real world as their primary frame of reference": the simplest route of doing so is to include separate fictional biography/plot summary sections, alongside sections devoted to analysis. At the moment, the development section conflates fictional biography with production/reception details, often leading to confusing sentences.
See MOS:PLOT: "Plot summaries and similar recaps of fictional elements (like a character's biography) should be written in an out-of-universe style, presenting the narrative from a displaced, neutral frame of reference from the characters or setting." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alternately, you could insert critical and audience responses into the development section, as done at Pauline Fowler, where the Reception section is dedicated solely to the reception of the overall character, not individual storylines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard practice amongst soap articles and our WikiProject to not have storyline and development sections since they can be mixed together. Having both makes a storyline section redundant as the development section would repeat everything from the biog in further detail. I also find that separating the two would expand the article as everything in the analysis would have to be linked back, eg: "When Meena did this, Sandhu said:", "After Meena learns of David's cheating, Sandhu explained:" and that would convolute the wording imo. It makes more sense and makes it succinct to keep plot and analysis together. I also disagree with putting any form reception into development as that section is long enough and it literally belongs in reception info, whether it's for her or her storylines. – DarkGlow • 23:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we're suddenly using Pauline Fowler as a template, I feel it necessary to note that her article uses the same layout as I did for Meena's; mixing plot with analysis. There is no separation on hers either… – DarkGlow • 23:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkGlow:, you say that separation 'would expand the article as everything in the analysis would have to be linked back'; however, you already do this in the reception section: "Prior to her scenes airing"; "After scenes of Meena locking Princess in a hot car aired"; "Moments after killing Leanna, a scene of Meena dancing to "Toxic" by Britney Spears aired"; "After Meena's murder of Leanna"; "Following Meena murdering Andrea"; "following her murder of Ben"; "when it was revealed that Meena would kidnap Manpreet"; "As the kidnap storyline progressed"; "Meena mentions that after killing Manpreet, she plans to kill Andrea's former dog Princess"; and that's nine examples in only three paragraphs. Linking back to earlier-discussed plot is thus clearly not an issue for your editing style.
I put up Pauline Fowler as a template of what your 'style' should be: you will note that the development section gives almost no indiscriminate information like this article does, but instead combines plot, production, reception, and character development into coherent prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite incidentally, if you say that 'this article does not cover everything and only ever her major plots', then surely there are comprehensiveness issues? I would not think that a character as well-discussed as this one seems to be would have no discussion of the minor plotlines from reliable sources? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is this supposed indiscriminate information on the article? I've asked before and I'll ask again since you seem to be convinced that my article is a total trash heap of plot and unrelated info. – DarkGlow • 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DarkGlow: firstly, for 'my article' please note WP:OWN. Secondly, I do not believe that the article is a 'total trash heap of plot and unrelated info'. See my words above: I'm not saying that the real-world information should be removed from the article, I'm saying that the fictional biography should be separated from the actress' commentary on events.
More specifically, I'm looking at sentences and paragraphs such as, randomly: "After the interactions between Meena and Dawn, Sandhu revealed that Meena will make several other enemies in the village. She noted that any strong women will be threatened by Meena since she enjoys annoying them. Alongside her rivalries, Sandhu also said that Meena would make friends, mentioning her friendships with Rishi and colleague Liam." This strikes me as a sentence which was written just after the actress said it and never edited afterwards—why is it still notable? Was the statement true? I do not know much about soap operas, but even I do know that the actors and producers are accustomed to 'tease' watchers with what happens in the future—is this a violation of WP:RS (genuine question, please don't take it as an attack).
Another example, chosen, again, on a glance: "When asked about Meena's inevitable comeuppance, Sandhu said that her dream exit scenario would involve Manpreet saving a victim of Meena's by killing Meena. She called for Meena to die in Manpreet's arms while sharing a "beautiful sisterly moment where Meena almost confesses love for her. She's almost normal and able to feel something – and then she dies!"" This comes at the start of the section 'Kidnappings and escape', and jumps, with no visible connection, straight back into plot ("Manpreet begins to suspect..."). Again, not an insult to you and your article in any way, but this sentence does not appear to have any relevance to what comes before or after it at all—hence my invocation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I hope this helps.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points about the quoted content and have either removed it or clarified/trimmed detailings. I'm still fairly set on the structure of the article remaining the same though – I believe that a storyline section is redundant and that reception belongs in reception, nowhere else. The reception of the character had no impact on her development as it's a real-world response to her and therefore, in my opinion, should not be put with info about her in-universe. – DarkGlow • 09:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
