User talk:Keenan.Churchill/New sandbox

The biggest problem with this section its is breadth and intense amount of detailed information on the early career of Friel. My goal will be to edit this section down to more condense approachable summation of the years in question.

I will attempt to provide a good leading section summarizing the arc of Friel's career in the time frame, then providing evidence and sources in the following paragraphs. Keenan.Churchill (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

In the 1st paragraph has some chronological problems and general need of editing towards becoming more succinct

The 2nd paragraph contains some editorializing that will be removed

The 3rd paragraph again has some issues of chronology, listing accomplishments and plays from the 90's and 2000's

The 4th paragraph is highly problematic, lacking any citation whatsoever and perhaps may be culled entirely...

In the 5th paragraph there is one source listed, somewhat problematic as the paragraph makes many claims that need checking. This is further difficult as the source used by the author is behind a paywall and cannot be checked by the general public. I will attempt to find another source for the time discussed by the paragraph. Keenan.Churchill (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I need to do some more research before polishing up the 2nd paragraph some more. I'm also thinking more generally that a political views section on Friel might be a more succinct way of speaking on the author's political views rather than interspersing research on his political views throughout the article. Perhaps. Keenan.Churchill (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Kaylee's Peer Review
Minor thoughts and questions: The first sentence of the first paragraph feels disjointed from the rest of the paragraph. Why does he withdraw The Blind Mice from production? Why is it important that this is included?

Overall: This section makes sense in terms of the organization and structure of the original article. However, this section is supposed to be about Friel's general career in this period but your revisions only discuss a portion of the plays produced in this time frame. Similarly, a quote is used to signify that Friel preferred writing short stories but no short stories were included in this summary. Therefore, I feel that you could include more of his other works and perhaps expand upon some of his political influences for these works (i.e. The Mundy Scheme and Volunteers that were mentioned in the original article). In doing so it may be better to rework the organization of the article rather than using a 16-year-long chunk of time as the base-line (e.g. making the periodization shorter or creating a new section regarding political influences). That being said, the neutrality and the sources used are both fine.

Kkravetz (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Kkravetz

Hi

Just a quick note to say that I appreciate the chronological work; to urge you to be cautious around cutting potentially useful details that might night appear on other pages (although some of the cuts here are well-warranted); and to encourage you to ask me for help with accessing paywalled articles if you need to. Solid work - looking forward to seeing how it develops. EmerOToole (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Keenan's Peer Response
Good feedback from both of you. Yes, the intro could be smoother, and the Blind mice sentence is disjointed, now that I look at it. As far as expanding his early career and non-play writing career, I hadn't thought of that as he is primarily remembered as a playwright, but its a good suggestion to flesh out the arc of his early career, I'll try to do that. As far as the time period of the article, I agree with you Kkravetz, but I feel a bit constrained by the limits of the actual article, perhaps Prof Emer could clear that up for me. Keenan.Churchill (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi - yes, I see the issue. The chronology of the original article does seem quite arbitrary, and on the one hand perhaps it would be useful to divide it into decades (the 60s would have to start in 59, but I think that would be okay). On the other hand, this quite major restructuring might a) limit the time you have to add useful content to the article and b) peeve the Wiki editors who created the original structure. Perhaps it would be a good idea to leave a question on the talkpage, asking the eds to explain the rationale for the current chronology and suggesting a more logical one. I am also going to ask to weigh in here and advise us further.

Hi, in the absence of any further advice from Shalor here, I'm going to play things a little safe and advise against the major restructuring in favour of the content improvements you are already working on. I'm also going to advise you to start moving this to wikipedia, taking Kaylee's and my feedback into account, and remembering to provide edit summaries for other wikipedians EmerOToole (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)