Talk:Phil Soltanoff

Sections

I broke up Soltanoff's career into separate sections to show his progression over time - from more traditional narrative to more avant garde. The middle period of 1984-2003 is less developed. I'm sure there are more sources about that era, I just haven't really focused on them. Justinkrivers (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of works

To be honest, I've had a hard time figuring out how to describe the different pieces. I think it would be beneficial to have some type of synopsis or summary of the major works, but the descriptions in reviews and articles were a challenge for me to synthesize. Perhaps an editor with more of an affinity for this style of theatre could help develop that more? Justinkrivers (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of work

Soltanoff is described as the "director" of most of these works, but he's also referred to in sources as if he were the co-author as well. I have retained that attitude in the article thus far. Although that might not be accurate for a narrative theatre piece, for Soltanoff's type of work I think it makes sense: in the absence of a formal script, where what happens is "devised" over time in collaboration with other authors, this seems correct. I don't see a lot of the sources suggest that there were other "authors" (except in some specific cases that I noted). Justinkrivers (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

promotional tone

@Chaotic EnbyWas there something specific that you thought was too promotional? I didn't really find any bad reviews but I'm certainly not trying to write a puff piece. I don't even like this kind of theater. Justinkrivers (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the article is a selection of quotes/reviews, starting with "One of our most interesting multimedia directors," according to The New Yorker. in the lead. This is the kind of thing you would find in an advertisement, but shouldn't cover an encyclopedic article like this. It could be good to have a "Reception" or "Criticism" section where you can describe the reception, but in general, the article should focus more on him and, through secondary sources, on analysis of his work, than on opinions about him.
For example: Instead of saying A starring role in The Hostage by Brendan Behan won the praise of the local press. "Best of all is the pairing of Soltanoff and Ms. Catlin as a romantic couple," according to The Knickerbocker News. "Together they create an oasis of finely-tuned reality that contrasts nicely with the surrealistic world around them.", you could say Soltanoff starred in The Hostage by Brendan Behan, with local press noting the impact of his pairing with Ms. Catlin. However, if local press is all there was, it will probably not be WP:DUE to mention their opinions at all, as newspapers in the immediate wake of an event are usually considered primary sources and do not demonstrate the long-term importance of that specific role. On the other hand, if later secondary sources writing about his life (or about theater in that region, or about Brendan Behan, or etc.) emphasize the importance of this specific role, it would be WP:DUE to mention it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Williamstown Theatre Festival

I see a number of mentions of his work at Williamstown, but I'm not sure which press it is covered more fully in. I think the middle section of his body of work is thus underdeveloped, but I think I don't really have enough time to work on this more. Justinkrivers (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]