Tone problems: minor expansion
Okumaya devam et...
← Previous revision | Revision as of 07:24, 4 May 2024 |
| Line 44: | Line 44: |
| The article has significant problems with tone/style/puffery throughout (besides the "Early life" section). The whole second paragraph of the "First two plays" section is probably the most obviously unsuitable, but the whole final paragraph of the "Last two plays" section, nearly the whole final paragraph of the "First marriage" section, and many other parts have major issues, mostly because they're taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica with minimal changes. A number of sentences are confusing/unclear because of this, and some changes to the text taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica aren't supported by the original. [[User:AKiwiDeerPin|AKiwiDeerPin]] ([[User talk:AKiwiDeerPin|talk]]) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | The article has significant problems with tone/style/puffery throughout (besides the "Early life" section). The whole second paragraph of the "First two plays" section is probably the most obviously unsuitable, but the whole final paragraph of the "Last two plays" section, nearly the whole final paragraph of the "First marriage" section, and many other parts have major issues, mostly because they're taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica with minimal changes. A number of sentences are confusing/unclear because of this, and some changes to the text taken from the Encyclopedia Britannica aren't supported by the original. [[User:AKiwiDeerPin|AKiwiDeerPin]] ([[User talk:AKiwiDeerPin|talk]]) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
| :As one who has tried to improve the presentation at different times in last few years, I found yesterday that changes seem to have been made by intervening editors that had altered or removed citations I had put in, with the effect that I had a citation for one part of a book but somehow the initial citation that would have introduced the full details of the book to the reader had been deleted, a few unexpected appearances of 'Not defined' comments in red, and of bracketed numbers that did not connect to footnoted citations ("[1]", "[2]", and "3]"). I have reinstated the removed citations, also unified citations to the ODNB to one format that omits page numbers (some of my previous ones depended on the page of the ODNB the information was taken from). Hope that improves things in your sight.[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 06:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) | :As one who has tried to improve the presentation at different times in last few years, I found yesterday that changes seem to have been made by intervening editors that had altered or removed citations I had put in, with the effect that I had a citation for one part of a book but somehow the initial citation that would have introduced the full details of the book to the reader had been deleted, a few unexpected appearances of 'Not defined' comments in red, and of bracketed numbers that did not connect to footnoted citations ("[1]", "[2]", and "3]"). I have reinstated the removed citations, also unified citations to the ODNB to one format that omits page numbers (some of my previous ones depended on the page of the ODNB the information was taken from). The only changes I have made to text taken from the 1911 EB has been to tighten the grammar and paraphrase to read better to modern eyes. Hope that improves things in your sight.[[User:Cloptonson|Cloptonson]] ([[User talk:Cloptonson|talk]]) 06:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
Okumaya devam et...