Thread:BruceGrubb/@comment-1038387-20171120200147/@comment-1038387-20171121125608

That does not magically improve this article. Professional meetings are with people who understand the topic. Museum computerization, impressive though it is, relies on linguistics and/or semiotics in a way that differs from an article that claims to explain a confusing situation. This should be able to be read and understood by a (relative) novice.

The main body of text works fine (because some of it is copied). The bullet points are the problem. You introduce new information without structuring it, or explaining why it is important. You put the focus at the end of the point, which leaves the reader drowning in uncertainty as to why they're reading all this about Superbaby and capes and stuff.

If you look at the other ...is confusing articles, you see clear bullet points structuring the timeline. It omits a lot, because it's irrelevant. Like random powers or three different bullet points for Earth-Two-A, which most readers won't learn about without having to navigate to another page. A lot can still be cut and/or reworked.

I moved the bullet points about the explanation/origin of the powers to a separate section because it would need to be streamlined into a paragraph like the other two poorly formatted ones. It shouldn't be another bullet point, that just distracts from the timeline. These sections could even be put below the timeline.