Talk:Eleanore Griffin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgillpe. Peer reviewers: Lolzburg, Smariamartins, Pepito gun.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick Glance

So far, this does look like a promising start to an article: the facts are all referenced towards legit links, there are dates and locations which add to the factual information. So I do believe that you're on the right path: of course there's room for more info and more detail, but that can always be looked into further on. Now if I had to criticize anything, it would have to be some more minor things. The first thing I noticed was in the first sentence regarding Eleanore's Personal Life: here you give both her birth and death in literally the same mini paragraph. But from what I've noticed in most, if not all, Wikipedia articles, the death should usually be saved at the very end of the Personal Life category. And that makes sense, since you're diving into her life's history: makes more sense to conclude it all with the date of her death, rather than to start it with. It's like if you watched a documentary on a famous director: usually those types of documentaries end with them talking about his, or her, death and legacy. If you mention that stuff at the beginning instead, it kinda makes the rest of the facts you'll learn somewhat…lesser (know what I mean?). So yeah, in short, start it with her birth, but keep her death for the very end of her personal life, that way people get to know her a bit before reading how she died.

Another thing regarding the Personal Life paragraph is with the last sub-paragraph (the one that talks about her romantic involvement). You seem to have a lot of sentences that all link up to one same reference. Now had there been different reference links for each sentence, it'd be fine, but here I think you could easily condense some of this: I count four sentences, all with the same reference link, that I think you could easily condense into two sentences instead. That way, you kinda save from pointless space, and you make it easier for readers to continuously click on the reference number, only to then find out that they're going back to the same one over and over. So all you'd have to do would to just rewrite your sentences a bit and condense the information (at least the info that doesn't need any more future expansion).

But aside from those minor things, as I said, this is a pretty good start. And I'm confident that I'll be seeing vast improvements from you soon enough. Lolzburg (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lolzburg: Thanks for the suggestions, you make good points!. Sgillpe (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Review

I agree with some of the points mentioned in the first peer review. Save the date of her death for later on so that way the article will move from the beginning of her life to the end; this gives it a better structure. This is a good start to your article. I really like the idea of the section "themes in her scripts" this gives us more insight into what she liked or was more drawn to writing about. I would maybe do more research in that area and figure out if those themes were common or uncommon during that period; expanding on that section I think would bring something great to your article.

Your career section feels a bit brief. Maybe you can talk about more of her films themselves, not every single one but the ones that influenced the two directors you mentioned or any big actors that starred in them. This can be good to give a greater insight into what or who her work as a writer influenced.

I know information is hard to find so that's why expanding on as much as you can and researching different elements that directly affect her like the films themselves, actors, directors would help to lengthen your article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smariamartins (talk • contribs) 21:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smariamartins: Thanks for looking over my article, this is very helpful!. Sgillpe (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Great first start! I agree with most of what was already mentioned, and here's a few suggestions of my own; you seem to jump from one period of her career to another without a clear link of how she did so. This could be much stronger with the use of examples; for instance; in the second paragraph under "career" you mention how she started off writing short stories/ treatments that, if accepted, would be turned into scripts. It would be interesting to give examples of some of her short stories which got accepted. I would also change the order of the paragraphs in "career". the second paragraph should be the first one, simply because the date mentioned is earlier in the second one, and this would create a nice chronological description of her career.

In her "personal life" section, you mention that she continued to write with her ex husband (or technically ex-fiance) but maybe try to expand on that professional relationship. By expand I mean try to see how the critics responded to the films they worked on before and after their romantic interest, if possible. I know its very hard to find information, and if you cant find anything on the professional relationship between the two, maybe try looking up William Rankin himself, or perhaps some of the movies they worked on and hopefully you'll find some pertinent information.

Finally, and this would also require more research but perhaps look into her early life, and her creed. this would then shine a light on the section you have of "Themes in Her Scripts."

my last two suggestions require more research and im sure you've already done extensive research but good luck!!

Pepito gun (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pepito gun: Great suggestions, thanks for the help!. Sgillpe (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)