The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My main issue at first glance is that the lead is extremely short and the main bulk of prose is... well, very bulky. Those paragraphs are very, very long. On reading it, it article reads very much like "he said, she said." It's bouncing back and forth like you're retelling a story, which isn't very encyclopaedic. You say Rhadamistus 26 times in the Life section, which is quite a lot of repetition, especially in successive sentences.
I've stopped reviewing past the first sentence of the second section in the Life section. There are a lot of grammatical errors here, basic ones at that, but a lot of them. I was really confused in some parts where what you are saying hadn't been previously explained or spoken about, but was being spoken about as if it had. It reads very much like a list of events and not prose-like. There are problems with citation and sourcing too because you haven't placed citations at the end of each sentence, which makes it look like WP:OR (which I'm sure it's not, but that's what it looks like because I can't check each sentences credibility). The size of the Life section paragraphs are an issue too, those two paragraphs are huge. I'm not saying to cut anything out, but they could definitely be split into shorter sentences. It's difficult to read when you have a 16 line paragraph (and I have a wide computer screen, so someone who has a smaller screen than me could have as many as up to 25 successive lines. I'm sorry but I'm failing this article. It needs going over again, perhaps by someone not involved, as the structure and grammar isn't that good yet and I found it difficult to read because of that. Find a second pair of eyes and re-nominate once you've addressed these issues. — ₳aron 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My main issue at first glance is that the lead is extremely short and the main bulk of prose is... well, very bulky. Those paragraphs are very, very long. On reading it, it article reads very much like "he said, she said." It's bouncing back and forth like you're retelling a story, which isn't very encyclopaedic. You say Rhadamistus 26 times in the Life section, which is quite a lot of repetition, especially in successive sentences.
I've stopped reviewing past the first sentence of the second section in the Life section. There are a lot of grammatical errors here, basic ones at that, but a lot of them. I was really confused in some parts where what you are saying hadn't been previously explained or spoken about, but was being spoken about as if it had. It reads very much like a list of events and not prose-like. There are problems with citation and sourcing too because you haven't placed citations at the end of each sentence, which makes it look like WP:OR (which I'm sure it's not, but that's what it looks like because I can't check each sentences credibility). The size of the Life section paragraphs are an issue too, those two paragraphs are huge. I'm not saying to cut anything out, but they could definitely be split into shorter sentences. It's difficult to read when you have a 16 line paragraph (and I have a wide computer screen, so someone who has a smaller screen than me could have as many as up to 25 successive lines. I'm sorry but I'm failing this article. It needs going over again, perhaps by someone not involved, as the structure and grammar isn't that good yet and I found it difficult to read because of that. Find a second pair of eyes and re-nominate once you've addressed these issues. — ₳aron 16:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)