The expertise level of these target audiences may be lower than originally envisioned, but I believe (a) that Pinter is notable for people other than literature majors, and (b) that the details covered in the present article are within the understanding of the two target audiences given above.   

 If we can agree on this, then the following initial comments pertain.  I believe that the shortcomings mentioned below can be fixed, and I look forward to the article's progression to GA and thence to FA.  

 The criteria for a GA are that the article be (1) well-written, (2) factually accurate and verifiable, (3) sufficiently broad, (4) neutral point of view, (5) stable and (6) have images.  The article clearly passes on (3), and criteria (5) and (6) are less important to me.  I find minor lapses on (2) and (4) that will be given below.   

 * However, I do not believe that the present article is well-written for our target audience.  I sincerely doubt whether several intelligent people of my acquaintance would be sufficiently interested in Pinter to parse certain unnecessarily arcane passages.   More specifically, I find that  

 ** The article has poor flow; the sections are not as tightly connected as they could be.  
 ** Many sentences are overly long or overly complex in their construction.   
 ** There are too many parentheticals of ancillary details that do not advance the article materially.   
 ** Key facts are sometimes put at the end of a complicated construction, instead of near the beginning for easier comprehension by non-academics. 
 ** Some phrases are too — hagiographic and unencyclopedic; thus, they fail the WP:WORDS criterion, specifically WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.