Talk:Warriors (novel series)/GA4

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article is massive, which I am guessing is in part due to the merging of all the books here. The result is a massive ammount of plot relative to critical commentary. It fails the focus criteria. Someone needs to really trim out all the plot cruft before we can look at reviewing the article as a whole. AIRcorn (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarized the huge plots in 2 sentences or so, atleast for those that have articles. King Prithviraj II (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I feel this still needs more work though. Do we need sub headings for each Manga and novella. To be honest they are a little tedious with ..... was released ...... It continues from ....... I would suggest a table or even list format. This whole section can even be split out to Warriors (supplementary works) or something similar. There are also two of the main series which don't have articles and at the moment this is unbalancing that section. Again these can be split out. The setting can be cut down a bit too (I did some, but am unfamiliar with the series so it would be best if someone else does it). There are a lot of extraneous wording there that can be removed without changing the meaning much. I think the lead can be a little more engaging too, two paragraphs listing books in the series could probably be condensed. The critical reception section is strange. There is a sentence for the first book and then another sentence for the series as a whole (I think), then a large paragraph dedicated to the Manga. I would expect more about the series as a whole. The other sections are good. AIRcorn (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a go at changing the Standalones section largely into a table at User:Barkeep49/Warriors Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: How is this going? I am looking to close these up. I like your table and I think it would fit nicely here. AIRcorn (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I'm happy to incorporate the table. I believe @King Prithviraj II: was doing the bulk of the revisions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am going to delist this. Thanks to everyones work on it, I beleive it has improved the article out of sight. However I still feel it doesn't meet our standards of a Good Article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]