Spencerian (talk | contribs) →Analysis: -Article Concision |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: I don't know exactly how to feel about this episode. Honestly, it wasn't all that bad -- it could have been much better executed, however. I can't really disagree with any of the critisms leveled at this episode, primarily because I hold them to be evident as well. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:45, 28 January 2006 (EST) | : I don't know exactly how to feel about this episode. Honestly, it wasn't all that bad -- it could have been much better executed, however. I can't really disagree with any of the critisms leveled at this episode, primarily because I hold them to be evident as well. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe Beaudoin]] 09:45, 28 January 2006 (EST) | ||
::I'm in agreement, the analysis section does need to be toned down a little. Some of the criticisms are totally justified, while other parts seem unduly harsh. It wasn't a great episode but despite its flaws in did tell an interesting story. --[[User:Rexpop|Rexpop]] 10:12, 28 January 2006 (EST) | ::I'm in agreement, the analysis section does need to be toned down a little. Some of the criticisms are totally justified, while other parts seem unduly harsh. It wasn't a great episode but despite its flaws in did tell an interesting story. --[[User:Rexpop|Rexpop]] 10:12, 28 January 2006 (EST) | ||
I've edited this article heavily to concise it from its overly play-by-play format, but it could still see a more concising eye. I've also toned down the analysis to provable (i.e., non-subjective) points of the episode, deleting redundant or highly subjective commentary. There was too much personal bias in the story, reading more like a review than an analysis. Despite the small story in this episode, this article is quite weighty than the others. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 11:50, 28 January 2006 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 16:50, 28 January 2006
Analysis
The criticism here needs to be toned down drastically. I personally enjoyed this episode much more than I had been expecting to. --Peter Farago 02:16, 28 January 2006 (EST)
- I don't know exactly how to feel about this episode. Honestly, it wasn't all that bad -- it could have been much better executed, however. I can't really disagree with any of the critisms leveled at this episode, primarily because I hold them to be evident as well. -- Joe Beaudoin 09:45, 28 January 2006 (EST)
- I'm in agreement, the analysis section does need to be toned down a little. Some of the criticisms are totally justified, while other parts seem unduly harsh. It wasn't a great episode but despite its flaws in did tell an interesting story. --Rexpop 10:12, 28 January 2006 (EST)
I've edited this article heavily to concise it from its overly play-by-play format, but it could still see a more concising eye. I've also toned down the analysis to provable (i.e., non-subjective) points of the episode, deleting redundant or highly subjective commentary. There was too much personal bias in the story, reading more like a review than an analysis. Despite the small story in this episode, this article is quite weighty than the others. --Spencerian 11:50, 28 January 2006 (EST)