Talk:Snow Business (company)

How to improve it
In reference to the recent problem with the Snow Business (company) page. I would like to know what exactly it was that you found To be inappropriate with it so that it is possible to Edit it Again so that It is more descriptive but also expectable. I however found your Comment About The "filmography" some what confusing as almost all pages for special effects companies have a "filmography" section or a "credits" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruf3n (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not very familiar with special-effects articles, so I don't know what's customary. The main problems with the article were 1) no references for most of the material beyond the introduction, 2) a generally promotional tone throughout, instead of an encyclopedic style, and 3) long lists instead of straightforward prose descriptions. It was also probably too detailed; a summary of the highlights in each section would be more readable. Also, the history of artificial snow in films, fascinating as it was, would easily make its own article, as long as it was thoroughly referenced, but is somewhat off-topic for this article. Enjoy editing! - Gorthian (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)