" 
 :It is not true that an important aspect of a good article is that it is not too long. If that were true, I'd never have gotten the Avatar (2009 film) article, which is significantly long, to GA status. The Dark Knight (film) article, as well as many other GA articles of different topics, wouldn't be as long as they are either. The GA reviewer, who is extremely experienced on the matter of GA articles, would have mentioned this as well if what you state is true. This is article is not too long, if we go by WP:SIZE. An article can be quite long and of GA status, as long as the material is actually enhancing the reader's understanding of a topic and the article is not difficult to navigate through. Suffice it to say, I feel that the material you criticized is enhancing the reader's understanding and that the article is not difficult to navigate through. For the sections you mentioned, I see no ""useless and mostly unimportant details."" What you call ""excessively detailed,"" I call adequately covering those topics. There is more than a little to address about Murray and Burton's departures, and it's not like that section is covered by many paragraphs; it only consists of four paragraphs, five if you count the blockquote. I am well-aware that not every critic needs to be mentioned. The Critical reception section is simply going over the major topics, with brief mentions from different critics on those specific topics, and then it stops after that. There is no rule on how long a Critical reception section should be, and I quite feel that this is one of the better Critical reception sections...in contrast to those small ones that don't even begin to go into deep analysis about the topics. Also, the Plot section has been significantly cut down, during its recent copyedits as well. No more can be cut without removing needed details. As for spoilers, all of this is spoilers. If readers don't want to be spoiled, they aren't supposed to read the plot sections. See WP:SPOILER.  

 :If this criticism of yours has anything to do with my and Jay reverting you, then understand that it was not meant as a slight against you. I want to be clear about this because I have, on more than one occasion, seen editors who have had their edits rejected try and sabotage a GA review. If your criticism is unrelated to the reverts, has merit, then I apologize.   "