Wikipedia:Peer review/Concept musical/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an educational assignment for the spring 2014 semester. I've worked to add a cohesive definition, a history regarding the origin of the concept musical, a discussion of the first concept musical, and a history of its development.
I plan on adding a section regarding more modern examples, and a section that considers Stephen Sondheim's impact on the genre. After filling out these remaining sections, I'm going to rewrite the lead section to be more thorough.
I'm looking for feedback regarding: what else could possibly be added, and any ways to connect this article more to musical theatre as its 'parent' genre. I'm interested in how the concept musical springs from and feeds into musical theatre's varying forms and popularity. Any other thoughts are of course greatly appreciated!
Thanks very much, Ashleybirdsell (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Lead section: It's simple statement, but it gives me the idea of what is concept musical! i like simple.
Definition: It has a lot of information. Personally, i was confused a bit, because it's me!. There are slightly different thoughts of concept musical by many critics in this section. i think if there was a definition that you think most right and explanation about what critics have thought about it.
History: This section is great. I can see the concept musical's history. Are you going to add up more of recent shows?
sorry for my poor review. It is good time for me to go over your article and i learned from yours. I am looking forward to seeing your final draft! Nossoju (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Peer Review by CataVillamarin111
[edit]Overall, I think you're doing an amazing job with this article, especially when the definitions for this subject are so relative. I love how maintain neutrality by citing and referring to critics. A really smart thing to do. These are some things that I liked and that I would suggest.
Lead Section
I like how short but concise it is, and how you mention some key dates without giving the full detail. THis will sound incredibly shallow, and I don't really know how to do this, but I would consider adding an image to this first section to make in look more attractive to readers.
History
This is a very thorough section with lots of relevant in-text links that certainly enrich the experience of reading through the article. I really like how you divided this section into decades: makes it look more polished, and easier to digest.
As for the Modern Examples section, my first guess is that you're probably still working on it, right? Because up until this point you have been really thorough and detailed and there's a lot of great information. In any case, I would encourage you to expand this section further (if this information is available) because you have done an incredible job with it so far.
I hope I had more suggestions to make, but I don't know much about this topic. In fact, I feel I have learned a lot from reading this article. I look forward to reading your final version (and learning some more with it).CataVillamarin111 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note to reviewers
Instructions to reviewers, given here, state that level 2 or 3 headings should not be used to subdivide reviews, as these disrupt the WP:PR page. I have adjusted the ehadings in this review to level 4, which is OK to use. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)