Talk:Nick and Nora Charles

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

Women

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

Novels: Crime Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Crime task force.

Comments[edit]

Simplified introduction by creating Synopsis section.
Question relevance: Their banter provides comic relief of the type that would later be seen between John Steed and Emma Peel in The Avengers.? I have left it in the meantime as it provides some context to the relationship of Nick and Nora.
Synopsis requires expansion to give sense of the story.

--Haruth (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

synopsis is contradictory: was nick a private detective or police officer? If both, it should be clarified. 99.121.237.43 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)AB, Ypsilanti[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

I hate to say it, but the synopsis has some really sloppy writing. I did some grammar editing but the text is still redundant. The reader doesn't need to be preached to about her being a socialite and the family believing her to have married beneath her as it is mentioned, nearly word for word, twice. Were I more familiar with the films, I would take a stab at it. Maybe I will anyway. I think a comparison of the book characters and movie characters are in order, but also a discussion about their personality. The only personality that is mentioned here is his love of drink and little else. Also I can't stand to see "&" in the middle of any sentence. I took those out straight away. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively edited the entry to address the concerns raised above and to put the entry into more appropriate encyclopedia format. However, although I have as a consequence reduced significantly the personal commentary and original research contained in the entry, it was almost completely unsourced. I have not been able to address that, very serious problem this go-round. TheCormac (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a studio promotion of the whole series[edit]

This sycophantic article is all about promoting the films, very contrary to NPOV. It supplies no critical thinking or discussion of any kind. I think the whole article should be rewritten, using links to existing articles on each film. As a Wikipedia article this is currently pointless.