User:Vanished user 392817/Adoption/Good articles

Exploding cigars
This was the first good article I read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploding_cigar

It was on the recent list. As for the structure I thought the lead-in seemed a little long. It also seems to have a lot of pictures. I thought it was odd that the manufacture and decline were lumped into one category; it seems they should be separate and might make sense for the decline to be at the end?

I liked the use of sub categories under the Real Life heading.

The tone seemed neutral and it had over 50 references.

I personally would have liked to see a "How it works" section or something describing more fully how the cigar was developed.

Chrono Series
The other article I read was the Chrono (Series) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrono_(series)

Let me preface by saying Chrono Trigger is my favorite game of all time.

The structure for this article made a lot of sense to me. The lead-in was a good over-view and was short and to the point. The rest of the article seemed to follow a logical order; somewhat chronologically. It began with creation, then listed the main part of the series; the games, followed by the anime and music, closing with reception. I've noticed this seems to be a common template for video games.

It included sub categories for the games and I liked that it linked to the main article for each game.

I was surprised that this article had no pictures, but included two boxes (I forget their official names). One for the series and one for review scores.

It also included external links at the bottom, which I thought was a nice touch.

I forgot to mention that both articles were categorized. The Chrono Series included itself as a category which I thought was odd.

constant_k_filter
there is a natural, bite size for an articles and their sections (the sun is mediocre in every way);
 * even good articles need copy editing;

reduces redundancy, increases organization, specialization, and optimizes article sizing
 * Author side notations of related information

Shiva
Old structure rules need not apply: Apparently, it's now OK to force the reader to refer to the section title to get the section subject. Agreed.

Also in shiva a long section was broken by bare title-less sections ==== for editing or downloading purposes?