STOVL – ArmA: Armed Assault Talk
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Information overkill?) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
There is '''a lot''' of information presented within the article that has little or nothing to do with STOVL, for instance all those checklists - consider putting those in seperate articles. Also, the images are way too big and should be embedded as thumbnails. I do not mean to offend the author(s), but the article's current state is highly unreadable. -- [[User:Manny|Manny]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (CEST) | There is '''a lot''' of information presented within the article that has little or nothing to do with STOVL, for instance all those checklists - consider putting those in seperate articles. Also, the images are way too big and should be embedded as thumbnails. I do not mean to offend the author(s), but the article's current state is highly unreadable. -- [[User:Manny|Manny]] 13:35, 23 April 2007 (CEST) | ||
:Beggars can't be choosers... ;) | |||
:I'd MUCH rather have an article that goes a bit overboard in the detail, than not have an article at all. And since everybody is free to just skip the parts they don't need, I don't really see a problem in having too much detail. --[[User:Kronzky|Kronzky]] 05:45, 30 April 2007 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 05:45, 30 April 2007
Hi Frederf
I have been editing your text to make it more formal and adding in a few bits to aid in readability also some formating such as bold text and bullet points. We need to sought the pictures too.
Information overkill?
There is a lot of information presented within the article that has little or nothing to do with STOVL, for instance all those checklists - consider putting those in seperate articles. Also, the images are way too big and should be embedded as thumbnails. I do not mean to offend the author(s), but the article's current state is highly unreadable. -- Manny 13:35, 23 April 2007 (CEST)
- Beggars can't be choosers... ;)
- I'd MUCH rather have an article that goes a bit overboard in the detail, than not have an article at all. And since everybody is free to just skip the parts they don't need, I don't really see a problem in having too much detail. --Kronzky 05:45, 30 April 2007 (CEST)