| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
It has been over five years since the last peer review and a year since the last Good Article nomination, which it failed to be listed. Despite the fact that this article as been listed as a level-4 vital article, there has been no progress on improving the article to GA or FA status.
Thanks, —Farix (t | c) 14:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I just glanced over the article for the moment and immediately feel as though you could improve the article by restructuring it a bit and combining some sections together..
- I'd think about rewriting the lead to be more broad and perhaps reserving facts about commercialization and production studios for subsequent subsections lead-ins.
- Definition and usage could be renamed Etymology followed by History.
- The content of the Format sections seems to be appropriate to History.
- I don't understand Attributes as a top level section. Not exactly sure what I'm confused about.. it just doesn't read well for me, maybe it's just me.