Wikipedia:Peer review/John Dillinger/archive1

John Dillinger
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… Looks like over the past year or so this article has got unbelievably over-detailed and is now very hard to read without a huge investment of time (Compare with article from last year). Don't know if all this detail should be dropped into many subpages or if it's just to detailed to be on an encyclopaedia. Thanks, Aldaden (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Even after some judicious excisions by Aldaden this article runs to 156,050 bytes, which is grotesquely long, and, as suggested above, means that no reader is likely to wade through the whole thing. See WP:TOOBIG: this article is 50% bigger than the maximum suggested there. It's asking an awful lot of Aldaden (or anyone else) to plough through the acres of verbiage and reduce them to a reasonable size, but unless some heroic soul undertakes that task the article will remain a liability to Wikipedia. –  Tim riley  talk    14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * If no one else comes along to fix it, I'm contemplating restoring it almost entirely to the way it in the link above from last year with what is currently on the article page put on subpages with the usual link to it at the top of each section on the main article (eg "for main article see John Dillingers Final Months"). This would mean a quite a bit of duplication, but am not really in a position, nor have inclination to edit or sumarise the text because don't know, or care, enough about subject and wouldn't know what there is copyright violation. Aldaden (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the subject isn't all that close to your heart, I call it even more generous of you to invest your time in rescuing the article. Please ping me if you would like input at any stage, and particularly if you get the page up to a second peer review. I wish you the very best of luck. –  Tim riley  talk    18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: having looked at the April 2014 version you link to, above, I think you're right to propose reverting to it and adding links to sub-articles on the various sections. For such a drastic step it would be better to have the backing of a consensus before you begin, and may I suggest you post a note on the article talk page, linking to this PR discussion, and proposing to revert to and start again from the April 2014 version? I will certainly support such a suggestion, and I should be mightily surprised if other editors, having once seen the eye-glazing dreadfulness of the present megascreed, don't add their support too. –  Tim riley  talk    18:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)