Wikipedia talk:Narrative flow

Interesting essay - thanks for the invitation. A few things I can think to add are 1) perhaps give a few specific examples in the Queen Victoria article of things that make more sense where they are now (as opposed to in a separate section of the article). 2) If an article does have parts in a separate section, I think it is still very important to mention where those parts are temporally in the history section. A kind of example of this is in opera and musical articles, where there is a description of the plot and the song titles are noted in parentheses after. I know when I wrote stream articles, I made it a rule to make sure and mention anything described elsewhere in the flow (so Larrys Creek flows under the Cogan House Covered Bridge). 3) In the spirit of Ignore all rules, I do think there are times when it makes sense to break something out. If a historical figure is known chiefly for one thing, then a brief biography to give context followed by discussions of the one thing seems an OK way to write the article to me - Dred Scott is kind of written this way. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 13:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)