GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Krimuk90 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.
Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @ Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Krimuk90 ( talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.
Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @ Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)