Talk:Kirsten Sheridan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale.

A fact from Kirsten Sheridan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on November 8, 2007.

[edit] Enda Walsh

As a new reader, this was hard to decipher: "Sheridan's first feature film was 2001's Disco Pigs, Enda Walsh's adaptation of his play". His play who's play? Sheridan's? Bulbous 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sheridan is a she; Enda Walsh is a he. Walsh wrote the play, Disco Pigs and adapted it for the screen; Sheridan directed. How do you think it could be written more clearly? --Melty girl 08:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something to the effect of "own adaptation" or "self-adaptation" or "own play", to better illustrate the recursive. I just know it was a little hard to follow after a few glasses of wine. Good article! Bulbous 15:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! --Melty girl 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

Article qualifies as a good start. It could use a lot more information, if any is available, on the subject's personal life, education, etc. John Carter (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Used everything I could find. All her films are here. Her education and family info is in here; couldn't find anything else. --Melty girl (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. Unfortunately, as I find out recently in my first GA review, Michael Van Patrick, people tend to be sticklers for including "background" information for GA status. I imagine, considering she is alive, more information will be coming out in time, but there do seem to some individuals who would certainly deny it GA and maybe B without more thorough information, whehter it's really available or not, unless there was clear evidence that the subject tries rather hard to not be mentioned in the press. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as no more than Start at this present time. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Many conversations at FAC reaffirm that length is not a criteria for high quality, but instead comprehensiveness is desired. I therefore would be interested to know exactly why you two feel this article fails to meet B-class (not GA) criteria, given that it is as comprehensive as possible, meaning that additional information cannot be found, that the young subject's entire life is covered without any gaps, that it is absolutely fully sourced, that it is well-written, that it has no POV or WP policy problems, that her filmography and awards sections are entirely complete, etc., etc. If you're saying that she has to live longer and receive more press before an article about her could move past Start-class, I strongly disagree that that's what the assessment criteria requires. If an article is comprehensive and well put together, I do not see why it could not be B-class at the very least. It seems like you're confusing priority scale with quality scale, but perhaps you can explain how you applied the quality scale to this article.--Melty girl (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)