Talk:Kirsten Sheridan

Enda Walsh
As a new reader, this was hard to decipher: "Sheridan's first feature film was 2001's Disco Pigs, Enda Walsh's adaptation of his play". His play who's play? Sheridan's? Bulbous 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sheridan is a she; Enda Walsh is a he. Walsh wrote the play, Disco Pigs and adapted it for the screen; Sheridan directed. How do you think it could be written more clearly? --Melty girl 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe something to the effect of "own adaptation" or "self-adaptation" or "own play", to better illustrate the recursive. I just know it was a little hard to follow after a few glasses of wine. Good article! Bulbous 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! --Melty girl 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
Article qualifies as a good start. It could use a lot more information, if any is available, on the subject's personal life, education, etc. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Used everything I could find. All her films are here. Her education and family info is in here; couldn't find anything else. --Melty girl (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you. Unfortunately, as I find out recently in my first GA review, Michael Van Patrick, people tend to be sticklers for including "background" information for GA status. I imagine, considering she is alive, more information will be coming out in time, but there do seem to some individuals who would certainly deny it GA and maybe B without more thorough information, whehter it's really available or not, unless there was clear evidence that the subject tries rather hard to not be mentioned in the press. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed as no more than Start at this present time. Ref (chew) (do) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Many conversations at FAC reaffirm that length is not a criteria for high quality, but instead comprehensiveness is desired. I therefore would be interested to know exactly why you two feel this article fails to meet B-class (not GA) criteria, given that it is as comprehensive as possible, meaning that additional information cannot be found, that the young subject's entire life is covered without any gaps, that it is absolutely fully sourced, that it is well-written, that it has no POV or WP policy problems, that her filmography and awards sections are entirely complete, etc., etc. If you're saying that she has to live longer and receive more press before an article about her could move past Start-class, I strongly disagree that that's what the assessment criteria requires. If an article is comprehensive and well put together, I do not see why it could not be B-class at the very least. It seems like you're confusing priority scale with quality scale, but perhaps you can explain how you applied the quality scale to this article.--Melty girl (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One might find no additional information online, but there's surely additional information available. How about newspaper articles, book entries etc.? The article is a nice read and the sources look good, but I believe Start is as of now a good assessment. Hekerui (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're speculating about what "surely" must be, but not taking this assessment seriously enough to back it with facts. Kirsten Sheridan is a young director who hasn't been written about very much, but has nonetheless been involved in a few major films and is therefore notable. There aren't books written about her, but the newspaper articles about her are online and cited here. And I'm not ignorant about research: I was the sole editor who took Cillian Murphy to FA status.


 * The pro-Start class assessors only point to length, but the length of this article is appropriate to its young subject, and length is not part of the assessment criteria -- comprehensiveness is! The question of quality assessment concerns writing quality, verifiability, article structure and comprehensiveness. All of these elements are stronger here than Start class, which is described as, "An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources." Well, this article is completely sourced! And it is certainly not "quite incomplete" -- to add more would be to invent sourced info! Are you going to go by the actual criteria of Start-class, or are you going to go on your erroneous hunch that there must be more published about her?


 * Now let's look at C-class criteria: "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." Can anyone specify what important content about Kirsten Sheridan is missing? Or point out what's irrelevant? I don't think so. No, in fact, it's very comprehensive, encompassing all published material about the subject. (Of course, to verify this would take actual investigation of the topic for accurate assessment!) And it needs no "substantial cleanup."


 * So let's hold up the B-class criteria against this article:
 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as { cite web } is not required, but the use of < /ref > tags is encouraged. :Every single assertion is footnoted with inline citations, and all sources are reliable (IMDb is reliable for filmographies).
 * The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. : I challenge folks to produce obvious missing material. (Again, that would take investigation of the topic for accurate assessment.)
 * The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. : This article is unquestionably on the mark for defined structure.
 * The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. !!
 * The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. : typical film director info box is present, as is appropriate!
 * The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. !!


 * How about following the class criteria as written? And how backing up your assertion that surely there must be more published about her? This is a very young Irish director/writer, who's only directed one non-indie film, and it tanked. Why would you think there would be books written on her yet? If it's supposedly not B-class, then can you specify where the violations of the B-class criteria are? (Sigh.) --Melty girl 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Tpbradbury upgraded this to C-class, leaving the edit summary, "reassess to C rating, has reliable sources. from a look at the sources, 2 sentences doesn't reasonably cover the topic of her involvement in In America". Thank you, Tpbradbury for taking the time to assess closely. I'm pretty slammed in real life right now, but when I have time, I will see if I can add more about In America. --Melty girl 06:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirsten Sheridan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20051214135405/http://www.bfca.org/nomineesWinners.asp to http://www.bfca.org/NomineesWinners.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirsten Sheridan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019200108/http://www.close-upfilm.com/features/Featuresarchive/inamerica.htm to http://www.close-upfilm.com/features/Featuresarchive/inamerica.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071222035329/http://www.premiere.com/movienews/1379/2004-golden-globe-nominations.html to http://www.premiere.com/movienews/1379/2004-golden-globe-nominations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)