I think this a well-written article, and that it discusses Miller's major plays and responses to them. :) However, I felt that 95% of the article wasn't yours. Most of the sentences ended with a reference to someone else, and it would have been nice to see more of [i]your[/i] opinions and discussions shine through. :) It's also quite good how you indicate at his personal life at the beginning which does later tie into the plays he writes, that was good. :)
[i]The Crucible, although full of historical figures and a true premise, was not an allusion to the 1690s[/i] - I felt that you shouldn't have put that in the article at all, considering the next sentence said that the play was an allegory to the 1950s. I don't think mentioning the fact that it wasn't an allusion really helps, if you know what I mean?
Other than that, it's well-written, there aren't any errors, and it's definitely well researched. :)
[i]The Crucible, although full of historical figures and a true premise, was not an allusion to the 1690s[/i] - I felt that you shouldn't have put that in the article at all, considering the next sentence said that the play was an allegory to the 1950s. I don't think mentioning the fact that it wasn't an allusion really helps, if you know what I mean?
Other than that, it's well-written, there aren't any errors, and it's definitely well researched. :)