Talk:The Shadowy Third and Other Stories

Heather, this looks very good and shows a lot of effort. A few small suggestions: it seems like the first phrase of the first sentence is a dangling modifier ("Primarily known as a novelist" should be closer to her name). I think the plot summaries of the stories would be more user friendly if you broke them up with subheadings or at least spaces. In the third subsection Shadowy Third comes up again but is not italicized. Great work! Dlaitinen (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the grammatical error. Also, I broke up the plot summaries and agree that they appear more user friendly when arranged this way. Finally, I corrected the missing italics. Thank you. Heatherafox (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Heather,

I think your page is coming along nicely, and you've done some great work building your own page. As a read over this, I have two suggestions regarding your organization and content, both centered around the Plot Summaries section. First, you might want to break-up or re-format the stories you write about. As a chunk of text, all the info blurs together; I think if you separate each story (maybe with bolded titles) then this would increase the readability for visitors to your page. They could get get exactly the info they need efficiently. Next, your Plot Summary section actually begins with a brief discussion of the publishing history of the stories. This does not really seem relevant to the plots of the stories, but since the publishing history is something you know about and are very interested I think this could merit its own section below the plots. With your knowledge and resources, I think you could easily put together a short paragraph about the history of the collection that would be informative and not something many Wiki visitors would have considered prior to seeing your page (potentially increasing the pages relevance/significance). However, I understand you might have a thoughtful reason for including this info in the plot section. If so, I would try to make this more clear somehow: connect those ideas in writing! Great page and good luck! Nealfschr (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I reformatted the plot summary section and agree that it appears more user friendly this way. Your assumption is correct that I had a "thoughtful reason" for my initial configuration; but I think that my reasoning does not fit the audience's needs for this piece. Your suggestion about the publication history was very helpful, since I was torn about whether or not to create a section just for the Meeker edition. I have relocated all publication information under that one heading. Thank you, again, for your helpful recommendations. Heatherafox (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Great Start
Hi Heather, I've enjoyed reading this article on Glasgow's short story collection. I have a question about the first line. Should that read "one short story collection"? Or "in her lifetime"? It seems contradictory to say she only published one story and then list the stories in the collection, unless they are not by her. Also, there are opportunities, particularly in the critical reception or scholarship section, to make links to other WP pages, such as to Darwinism. Great work! LLRungegordon (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dr. Runge, I edited this first sentence several times for clarity of meaning and must have omitted "collection" from the most recent revision. I corrected this. I will also link Darwinism and look for other possible links. Thank you for your insights. 2607:FE50:0:8209:CD38:1ADE:1BB2:C8A (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)