User talk:Antipastor/Sandbox

My main problem with this text is its style. I do not think that the content you propose is problematic, it actually follows the guidelines of the older lead. Some omissions I do not agree with are minor and explained in the discussion of the article. There is no need to be as telegraphic in our lead. I agree with the addition of Aristotle's presence in the life of Alexander (to my teacher I owe my good well being...). To edit the text would actually result in the older lead, so at this point I deem it unnecessary. As I mentioned in the discussion, I would like to understand what it is about the style the lead is written, to be able to understand the point of these changes. GK1973 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your reply and I understand your comments. I hadn't read your comment here before replying in Alex's talk, with a list of concerns (basically: whatever is not in the article cannot be in the lead). Style is not a problem that I saw in the old lead (which I really liked as an independent intro on Alexander), but I wanted to make space for new additions. Eg, to write about Aristotle, I moved a sentence out of the first paragraph and into the second (my other alterations there are secondary, I just thought I could write them as i was revising it). Then I thought that avoiding the repetitions was a minor change, but still an improvement. No problem to prefer a less telegraphic style than my initial attempts, but without repeating the same things twice. Antipastor (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)