Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Miller/archive1

Arthur Miller

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Arthur Miller is an integral figure in the scope of American Playwrights. I am specifically looking for questions that you would like to see answered on this page.

Thanks, Andreabee12 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Deliirving

Overall, the article looks really great! You've found a lot of good information, and I learned quite a bit.

• The lead section is very clear. It is detailed, and the second paragraph in particular gives a great introduction. Is there a citation for the claim of his "most popular plays"? It sounds more like an opinion than fact, though I'm sure many scholars have used that statement. Giving it a citation would up its credibility.
• The body of the article really tells a story. His early life and later life surrounding the HUAC controversy is very strong, and the legacy section is a great way to end it. I don't think you need to add any more sections.
• Your in text and external links are all really good.
• You have some really great images that help to tell the story. They are well placed. Were you able to find any early images of him, maybe as a child or a young man? It might be nice to see him before he hit the big time.
• Your historical development is really good, but I do have a few questions and comments on the text. In "early career," you say "first play provided." I don't really know what that means. Do you mean first play produced? Then, in "critical years," I'm not sure if you need to repeat Daniel's name twice in the last sentence. You can just end it "...reunite with his adult son." Finally, in "HUAC controversy," you can add a comma between testimony and Miller: "...his testimony, Miller traveled..." Just a few little things for me to nit pick at. Really, the article tells a great story that is well written and easy to follow.
• The article is very comprehensive. The information flows really well.
• The information is well documented. There are a lot of good citations, and the places where there are multiple citations for one point further its accuracy.
• The information is also really clear. I appreciate how you include opposing views from critics and Miller himself.
• It's great there are no templates on the top of the page. The only one I would consider adding (or, really, have in mind as you continue to work on it) is "Unbalanced." There are a few points in the article when the language suggests leading the reader to certain viewpoints, like that he was "brilliant" or "popular." Unless those words are direct quotes, I'd refrain from using them.

I feel like I didn't give you much constructive criticism, but the article looks really good! Happy writing! Deliirving (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by User: Decafespresso

Wow, this is a very comprehensive article.

The lead section provides a clear overview of the article. “Most popular” and “most noted” would probably need citations. Also, is it possible to generalize his works in terms of genre or frequent themes? It would be helpful for those who’ve never read or seen his plays.

The sections are very well organized and easy to navigate. A few suggestions: I didn't really understand why 1956-1966 are "the critical years,” especially because he'd already won Tony and Pulitzer. Is it because of HUAC? The article might flow better if you put the Literary and Public Criticism section before the Arthur Miller Foundation section. If it’s just a list, I think the "Biographies and critical studies” section should be renamed “Further reading” and moved after the “See also” section. Is there a reason why the Characters section is a subsection of the Themes section? I thought they might be on the same level.

You have great in-text links as well as external links!

If you could find some, photos of Miller’s stage productions might be helpful.

The biography is very interesting and comprehensive. A few questions: Were Jane and Robert Miller twins? I’m confused about the beginning of HUAC controversy. Why was Eliza Kazan’s appearance significant to Miller? “In 1964 Miller’s next play was produced”; was After the Fall Miller’s first play after The Crucible? The chronology isn’t as clear because of the HUAC subsection. Regarding After the Fall, did Miller explain why he wrote the play in response to the criticism or did some critics support the play? Brustein’s quote is very strong opinion and it may put this section off balance. If After the Fall was that much of a disaster, why was Miller able to become the president of PEN only a year later?

The reference #1 (Obituary: Arthur Miller) is missing the name of the author of the article, Michael Ratcliffe.

Overall, the information is very comprehensive, clearly written, and well cited. I’ve learned a lot about Arthur Miller! Decafespresso (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)