With all due respect and appreciation for the second review, I'm seeking an additional opinion because I've found that the reasoning overlooks certain matters and is unspecific in other regards.
The criticism that some of the Character descriptions are short can be attributed to several noticeable factors, each of which attempts to stay in-line with policy or decorum:
1) The original, longer versions have been shortened and spun-off via
Wikipedia:Summary style.
2) The
sources cited for the character information provide only basic, limited material.
3) Adding additional, unverified character material would necessitate
original research, which the section attempts to avoid.
The reviewer asserts that "there is almost nothing in important areas such as 'Themes,'" but fails to specify which other important areas throughout the article contain "almost nothing."
The comment that some sections "aren't even a full sentence long" is again unspecific, and applies to a strict minority; I only noticed one upon reexamining the article. If another has been overlooked, it will be corrected. (I extend a thank-you to the reviewer for bringing this to my attention.)
It's been left further unspecified as to what prose in the "Book releases" section was "confusing." As for the section being a "mix," it's worth noting that it was originally separated, and later consolidated via the suggestion of the previous reviewer.
It is also left unspecified as to how the criticised sentence regarding the imagery was "very confusing" when the reviewer looked upon the images; the images illustrate exactly what is stated.
With regard to why the aforementioned sentence appears in the lead, it is there to point out a recurring theme present in the series' imagery. No further ideas/speculation about this theme are offered because the article attempts to avoid original thought.
Again, with all due respect, I can accept a failure, but I would simply like to request a more specific response to the GA nomination. Thank you. James26 ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect and appreciation for the second review, I'm seeking an additional opinion because I've found that the reasoning overlooks certain matters and is unspecific in other regards.
The criticism that some of the Character descriptions are short can be attributed to several noticeable factors, each of which attempts to stay in-line with policy or decorum:
1) The original, longer versions have been shortened and spun-off via
Wikipedia:Summary style.
2) The
sources cited for the character information provide only basic, limited material.
3) Adding additional, unverified character material would necessitate
original research, which the section attempts to avoid.
The reviewer asserts that "there is almost nothing in important areas such as 'Themes,'" but fails to specify which other important areas throughout the article contain "almost nothing."
The comment that some sections "aren't even a full sentence long" is again unspecific, and applies to a strict minority; I only noticed one upon reexamining the article. If another has been overlooked, it will be corrected. (I extend a thank-you to the reviewer for bringing this to my attention.)
It's been left further unspecified as to what prose in the "Book releases" section was "confusing." As for the section being a "mix," it's worth noting that it was originally separated, and later consolidated via the suggestion of the previous reviewer.
It is also left unspecified as to how the criticised sentence regarding the imagery was "very confusing" when the reviewer looked upon the images; the images illustrate exactly what is stated.
With regard to why the aforementioned sentence appears in the lead, it is there to point out a recurring theme present in the series' imagery. No further ideas/speculation about this theme are offered because the article attempts to avoid original thought.
Again, with all due respect, I can accept a failure, but I would simply like to request a more specific response to the GA nomination. Thank you. James26 ( talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)