Draft talk:Pyreneism

Unencyclopedic tone
The style in which this article is written is rather far from the normal Wikipedia encyclopedic tone. The lead does not even attempt to say what the subject of the article is. This lack of conformance to WP style continues. There may be a notable subject here, but the treatment is generally rambling.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I touched up the article a bit at the beginning to give it a proper definition. I believe the source may have been plagiarized from https://dbpedia.org/page/Pyreneism, or it may be the other way around. Either way, I hope this article can get rewritten by someone much more qualified than me, as it does require an extensive re-write. The sources are all over the place. Qdiggitydog (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did some minor edits to improve tone (removing unnecessary adjectives, first person pronouns, opinion statements) but the article reads as rather nonsensical, almost like it was poorly translated. There is too much in-text sourcing going on and it is generally inaccessible to anyone looking to learn about the topic. Also far too descriptive and grandiose in language - I guess the person who wrote it really loves pyreneism. I really do not know where to begin with this article but I hope someone smarter than me can figure it out. Fourthandfremont (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)