User talk:Agranat2/sandbox

Article: The Pillowman
When was the article started? 21:21, 24 June 2005

How did the article look in its early stages?

There were many biased/personal statements with no citations in the earlier drafts of the article. Over the course of two years, the only information added was a brief production history and an external link-table depicting more of Martin McDonagh's works--which is not the place for this information.

How/when was material added?

Material was added mostly in winter months and in June, on occasion. Editor 75.11.59.243, who established the first materials, appears several times every few months to make moderate changes to the article. Most of which is just polishing text.

By whom?

75.11.59.243 is the most involved, but there are Zipperzoo and 138.16.3.121 who pop up every once in a while to make minor edits.

How long did it take to get to its current stage?

Twelve years, since the play's first publication.

'''How recently have edits been made? Is it still active?'''

The most recent edit was a reversion of a good faith edit around the beginning of March. Before that, minor edits were made in the fall of 2016.

How actively did the editors use it?

No one has touched the talk page since 2010. It's very quiet.

For what reason?

It was mostly confused editors trying to figure out the mechanics of Wikipedia rather than discussing the material in the article. There was one instance of someone pasting a personal paper into the article, but was removed after a brief conversation between two editors.

How would you describe the tone of the conversation?

Immature and rather knowledgeable on the subject they were editing. They were pleasant to one another though.

Do you see the same editors here that you saw on the history page?

The only name that appeared on both pages was Zipperzoo. Other than that, no one else posted to both pages.

Strengths
Clear introduction that overviews the play's plot and it's critical reviews. Easy to navigate sub-sections which add to a better understanding of the plot. Neat layout--Contents are clear and concise. States the facts. Summarizes the story well.

Weaknesses
WARNING BANNER. Citation errors. Red links. Not up-to-date. Confused Editors (Not discussing well with one another). Lot's of personal opinions on the piece. Agranat2 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)