Wikipedia:Peer review/Academic drama/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have substantially increased the content of the article by adding two images, five section, and have completely rewritten the lead paragraph. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Jcbjaw12 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jessie,
First, I really liked this article and this it looks great!
Structure, Format, and Appearance: Overall, the lead section is detailed (maybe too detailed, you could even have a section describing the genre), straightforward, and clear. As well, the article has a well structured body with headings the organize the contents. I do think you could add a section on the significance of academic drama so that we know its historical importance, what it effected, and why it matters. Your article has plenty of useful links in the text and a great reference section. I think a great place to add links might be in the list of plays and playwrights. I could imagine a reader wanting to be able to click to learn more about a particular piece.
Content and Sources: The information is very clear, relevant, accurate, and comprehensive. As I mentioned before, there could be a bit more history/historical development in terms of what led scholars to create academic drama and what was gained after they did. I really appreciated the way you backed up your statements with stories that showed how you got there.
Overall: I think this article is looking really good and much improved. I think readers will find this page very useful! Hopefully my comments help a little. Great Job!
Gilliark (talk) 18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The article looks great and I've looked through your edits. You've obviously improved this article substantially.
Structure: The lead section has a lot of information and clearly states what the article is all about. The way you've organized your content makes sense and the artiucle flows well. The in text citations are very helpful and you could probably add a few more. I also enjoyed how in deopth your "classic drama performed" and "English Drama Performed" section.
Content: The added information to this article is clear and comprehensive. I learned a lot from reading this article and you made the information seem accessible even though you're talking about events that occurred in the 16th centuury. This article is very readable.
Sources: Information was cited really well, the sources used were legitamite and accurate. Again, you've transformed this article and I found it comprehensive and readable.
I do agree with Gillian. A section regarding Historical Signifigance could include the result of these academic dramas, influenced works and historical figures, and the affect ion the art form in general.
I hope my comments helped Jessie!
Minor feedback
[edit]It's a really nice expansion on the article. However, you might want to link the term classical drama and add a link or few words to explain what neoclassical drama is - knowing nothing of the topic, I'm not quite sure what that is. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)