Talk:The Homecoming
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Homecoming article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
PLOT[edit]
This is not the plot of The Homecoming Mary Harper 12:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am thinking that a plot synopsis is more beneficial that a plot analysis. The line quotes etc are somewhat tedious , I will purchase the script and read it. Just want to get a down and dirty on the plot is all I am looking for , not a thesis. CW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.41 (Talk) (talk • contribs) 10:48, May 14, 2008
- I agree with the unsigned above. The extensive, choppy quoting throughout the article is extremely distracting, and there is too much of the original dialogue in the plot synopsis. I'm not sure it is necessary to include any of the original dialogue in a synopsis. It's a bit much to wade through. 98.150.247.183 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It would appear someone's answer to the critiques of the synopsis was to remove it completely? Having neither seen nor read the play, I cannot just be bold and supply the summary. Could someone after all this time come up with at least a SENTENCE or two to help us out? Lawikitejana (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with the unsigned above. The extensive, choppy quoting throughout the article is extremely distracting, and there is too much of the original dialogue in the plot synopsis. I'm not sure it is necessary to include any of the original dialogue in a synopsis. It's a bit much to wade through. 98.150.247.183 (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Critical Response[edit]
The Critical Response section to me seems biased, completely dismissing a view and poisoning the well against those who hold that view. I would change it myself but I don't know enough to make the right changes. Igu Soni (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The section is written in a slanted way that casts doubt on some critical views while presenting others as more credible. Also, some critics' views are presented as facts (with citations). This is incorrect use of attribution. Even with citations, opinions are not facts. What is factual, is that the opinions exist. So the article should take more care to place a level of separation between itself and the opinions it presents. Also, the section uses scare quotes in a way which appears intended to discredit certain critics, and which also creates unnecessary confusion for readers. Augurar (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)