Wikipedia:Peer review/List of works by William Monahan/archive1

List of works by William Monahan edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to send it to WP:FLC (Featured Lists) eventually. I may also send it to WP:GA before nominating it for the featured list status. Hopefully you will enjoy reading it, especially the Reception sections. Although it is mainly a list of works, I have tried to annotate whenever possible.

Additionally, this list is based on the featured List of works by Joseph Priestley, imitating its style where comparable. If you have any criticism of the prose (of which there is much in this list of works) please speak up; I am interested. I would like to give this list of works as much polish as possible.

Thanks,

BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Awadewit edit

I am so impressed! Wow! This is a list of works to match. Here are my comments:

Just who this William Monaham? :) Seriously, I think you need an introductory paragraph. See Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft, for example, which starts out with a description of her, her time, and her works. Timeline of Jane Austen (new!) also does this.

Thanks. It has been a lot of work but definitely worthwhile. The main article on William Monahan has benefited substantially from this retrospective of his past journalism work. You're right about the lede and I've made some changes to it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better now. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I further improved it. Those two timelines have excellent introductory paragraphs. Unfortunately there isn't as much to be said in my case. I will continue to see if I can improve the lede.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In another part of the inn a fire foments - do fires foment?

I changed the phrase to fire starts.

I think the infobox is unnecessary, as you are giving us the bibliographic information. It's intrusive - how about just the cover?

Done.

WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:PUNC - Blockquotes don't belong in call-outs and punctuation goes outside of the quotation mark for incomplete sentences.

I fixed the punctuation based on whether it's a complete sentence or a fragment. I also fixed the inside quotations and made use of the &nbsp in appropriate situations. Also, attributed the criticism of his first novel to the authors, not just the papers they worked for.

The Light House section seems like an article in and of itself - why not make it one and then summarize the article here?
I have considered this. At the moment I think it would be best to keep everything in one list of works because there is a lot of referral by the works themselves and by the Wikipedia list of works to the individual works. Examples:
- The publication history criticism by Claude Dederer in the Reception section for Light House refers to the Publication section as well as to the Literature in Massachusetts section.
  
  The Publication section for Light House refers to the "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" section, in which the work itself on the New York Press web site makes all sorts of references to the various works in the bibliography.
  
  Then there is also the "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" section which gains a lot by its place in the list of works where you can make sense of all the inside-jokes and quirks in the serial narrative by just glancing about the list of works.

So while I could duplicate the Light House article on its own, it really benefits most by its place in the list of works as does the list of works itself. It seems atm to be the ideal set-up, especially considering the audience is not huge for Monahan's past works, and they are likely to get everything and more than they want to know by just consulting the List of works by William Monahan. Maybe if Light House was put back in print, and a second novel appeared or something, then the list of works might be best broken up into separate articles.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so, but I think the list should be a bit more list-y and your mini-article should have its rightful place in the pantheon of articles. :) However, your points are well made - it is perhaps more a point of personal preference whether grouping all of the information together or separating it out is best. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I considered this, I realized I would have to copy a lot of sections into the Light House article, and then I just decided to settle with having it all in one list of works. The other sections that would have been copied over into a Light House: A Trifle article would have been the Old Crow Review serialization list, and the Dining Late with Claude La Badarian summary. It seems simpler to have everything in the list of works but that is my personal preference after all. I'm going to send this to WP:FLC and see what they say.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wondered if your narration of events doesn't tip over into original research (good research!), but original nonetheless.

His last contribution to the Old Crow Review, titled "The Virtual Career", was innovative in its use of an electronic keychain game as a literary device used to chronicle the tragic decision-making process of a career man in the media world. - source?
- You're right about this. Without a source I believe I am allowed to purely describe the article, but the qualifier innovative is OR and possibly the "electronic keychain game as a literary device" is OR although it really needs to be stated how odd "The Virtual Career" is. You're basically sent through a game of decisions, in which foolish decisions are made in lieu of other ones. It's one of my favorite pieces. Very funny.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed this sentence to His last contribution to the Old Crow Review, titled "The Virtual Career", fictionalized an electronic keychain game in which a career man makes tragic decisions in New York City.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems more descriptive and less evaluative to me. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The letters from readers in the following weeks were more thoughtful - what justifies this statement?
- I have revised the paragraph to be more pointed and hopefully removed any OR.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again - this looks more descriptive - the quotations work well, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the conclusion of the successful run of his column, he requested the job of editor of the magazine for the next Summer; the publisher granted him the promotion. - why "successful"?
- I changed this sentence to At the conclusion of a successful run of his column, which initially "appeared at the back of the book" and eventually "migrated to the masthead" replacing the "Editor's Note", he requested the job of editor of the magazine for the next Summer;-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good. Awadewit | talk 05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I thought this was excellent and I have no doubt that you can resolve the above issues. Awadewit | talk 08:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. If I missed something or you have any further comments please let me know.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos edit

OK, let me just say this is stunningly comprehensive—you've certainly done your homework. I do have a few minor issues, though, mainly with the overall prose. I'll get to them in a while :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Any help with the prose would be appreciated.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I've boldly done some tweaking here; tell me what you think.

Thanks. I like the tweaks and I'm going to transfer them over the the main article on William Monahan. I did revert one thing about the 1997 Pushcart Prize, just because the 1998 Pushcart Prize is awarded in 1997, and it just avoids that confusion, as to whether you are being overly accurate when you say in 1997, or are simply referring to the year of the title of the pushcart prize. Simply put, the 1997 Pushcart Prize starts with a short story nominated in 1995 by a literary journal, and then notification follows in 1996, and finally the volume containing all the pushcart prize winning stories is published in Dec 1996, although I'm sure the volume spends most of its time being read in 1997. Yes, that's way too much detail, but after I had gone there and couldn't turn back.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He was awarded [...] an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Departed, his second produced screenplay."—could you change screenplay to script? It would make things flow a little better.
Done.
Note: Although this list of works has been meticulously compiled, it is based on amateur bibliographic research and should not be considered a professional bibliography. Is such a disclaimer necessary?
I removed it. It was just a warning that if I didn't get everything, don't kill me. It's simply amateur bibliographic research.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I wonder if you have any opinions on how I should proceed after this peer review? Whether I should go to GA for an additional stamp of approval, before heading to WP:FLC?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, there's more :) GA is not for lists; FLC is the only process for them, and, even if there was an equivalent, GA isn't really a requirement for an article to be featured. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, thanks. Take your time. I'm going to keep this LoW here for a while, and then once everything is polished I'll probably head to FLC.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to send this to WP:FLC now. If you do see any other problems with the prose let me know, but I think you already caught most of it. Thanks for all the help.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome. Three more things, and a question for good measure:
    - I think you can remove the IPA pronunciation here. It may be fine in the main article, but I think it's overkill here; it's not as if "William Monahan" is as hard to pronounce as, say, "Geike Arnaert" :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, will do.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "However, in the following years his services as a screenwriter were in high demand [...]"—that seems a bit too... laudatory, if not downright promotional, especially for the lead. Sorry :)
      - I rewrote the sentence. I'm trying to illustrate the break, from publishing Light House to basically working heavily in screenwriting.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Under "Literature published in Massachusetts", I'm curious as to why you listed the numbers of pages rather than specific page ranges.
      - For both the Old Crow Review and Perkins Press there were no page numbers. You can see further down for the Pushcart Prize I also just listed 3 pages. In that case I could list page numbers. Is that the correct thing to do?
    - Is William Georgiades of the New York Times William Georgiades of the Old Crow Review?
      - Yep, the same one.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But you mean Perkins Press; it ran from 1990-1994.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, sorry. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, nice work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated edit

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 12:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]