Talk:Clear Rivers/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picked this up as it was one of the oldest unreviewed articles. The first thing I noticed was the overuse of quotes particularly toward the end of the article. Did a quick calculation and (not including the lead) about 40% of the article consists of various quotes. The reception section itself is basically a list of quotes in the form of, such and such said "......", while critic 2 said "...." etc. There are also some very long ones (e.g. "We’ve brought back Clear in an interesting way and we just felt that to bring both of them back would make you wonder too much just what the hell they’d been doing for the past few months. We had an option on Devon to return, so money wasn’t an issue. With Clear, Ali’s character knows everything about the enemy that she and Kimberly Corman are facing and she’s the perfect mentor for Kimberly. Ali’s character has incarcerated herself into a mental institution for her own protection so she’s the main link to the original film.”). If most of the quotes can be turned into prose then I will reconsider, but in my opinion there are too many for this article to pass as a Good article; failing the prose and focus requirements. AIRcorn (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to thank you for taking notice on the article. Second, I understand the 'quotes' issue and will be on to it. Lastly, is that all? -- FD Joshua 22 09:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I understand that most of the quotes should be first-person view as always, but do I need to revise ALL quotes? -- FD Joshua 22 09:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]