Wikipedia:Peer review/Phaedra (Seneca)/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to improve the article as an assignment for the Brooklyn College, History of Theater through 1642 course.
Thanks, Gdirado (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
[edit]This is very good stuff, and I have only the most minor comments, viz:
- There are stray double quote marks at the very end of the last sentence of "Source material"
- Wikipedia house style is sentence case, not title case, for section headings. So you have "Plot summary" right but you need to take out the capitals within "Source Material" and "Historical Context and Reception"
- Your wiki-link to Antiope doesn't point to the page you want it to point to. in the edit screen you should replace it with [[Antiope (Amazon)|Antiope]], which will look the same to the reader, but will point to the right page.
- words and phrases in quotes: sometimes, I think, you use quotes unnecessarily: "guilty" (Lines 424–834); "brazen", "forward", "correct" and "chaste" (Source material); and "fashionable" and "acted" (Historical context and reception).
- In addition to the above, may I suggest that you consider switching the Plot summary and Characters sections round? To me, it makes more sense to introduce us to the characters first and then tell us what they did.
I hope these few points are useful. I have just glanced at how the article looked in June before you began working on it, and one cannot fail to be impressed at the improvement. A fine piece of work, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review by Kfurano1129 (talk)
[edit]14 November 2013 (UTC)
STRUCTURE, FORMAT & APPEARANCE: This article has a strong lead section. It provides a good overview of the topic of the play without going into details covered in the later sections. I particularly enjoy how it not only provides details about Seneca, but also includes reference to other notable versions of the story. My only critique is that the phrase “portraying the title character as sensual and shameless,” borders on opinion, reading a little more like an interpretation than a fact. I think this problem could be easily solved by citing a scholarly work that backs up this character interpretation.
This article has a particularly strong structure. The sections are well organized and build nicely on the topic of the article. I find the plot synopsis particularly useful, as it is divided by line number. All of the sections provide relevant information to the topic of the play, as well as helping create both a context and critical understanding of the text. The “source material” section is particularly relevant in the context of examining a Roman play, and feels very relevant to the overall quality of the article. I don’t believe the article structure requires any addition, elimination, or merging of sections.
In terms of links, this article contains a large number of relevant in-text links that a particularly useful in increasing a reader’s understanding of the topic. I especially appreciate the linking of the character names to articles about their mythical counterparts. The article also contains an external link section. While all the links are relevant, it might be worth exploring the addition of one or two additional links to provide additional context, if reliable web sources can be found. For example, is there further reading on Seneca that could be helpful to the understanding of his version of Phaedra?
Both images contained in the article are works of art representing the characters, and are not only excellent choices for the article, but also compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. My only suggestion would be to move one of the images closer to the top of the article to make it more visually grabbing.
My only overall suggestion in terms of structure is the addition of an “info box” that appears in many Wikipedia play entries.
- Note - I disagree about adding an infobox. This is a hotly contested issue on Wikipedia. Those of us who discourage infoboxes reason that the infobox is redundant - summary/overview information should be clearly described in the LEAD section and then expanded upon in the body of the article, so the information in the box is a third iteration; the limits of the box interfere with the lead image; the box tends to accumulate errors and cruft. There are other reasons that I could point you to if you are considering it. For some kinds of articles, like sports or politics, the boxes make more sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
CONTENT& SOURCES: Overall, the article provides thorough coverage of the history and historical develop of the play. It provides relevant dates in terms of placing the play in the context of the Roman Theater. It, in facts, contains an entire section devoted to the historical context of this particular version of the play. My only suggestion would be to include the dates of Euripides version of the play in the “source material” section, to more firmly place Seneca’s version in overall historical context.
The information presented in the article is both clear and comprehensive. The writing style is clear, readable, and presents a logical flow of information. To put it simply, the article is well-written and thorough, without being cluttered with irrelevant detail.
Overall, the article complies with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. There is a balance of secondary and tertiary sources that are both scholarly and reliable. The references are also, to my knowledge, formatted according to guidelines. I am particularly appreciative of the “further reading” section. My only suggestion would be to perhaps find one or two additional sources to cite existing information, if possible. This would only increase the strength of the article.
Overall, this article is a strong article and, with a few additions, is on its way to becoming an exemplarily Wikipedia entry thanks to the work of the editor.
Peer Review by Yona M. Corn (talk)
[edit]18 November 2013 (UTC)
Great work Gina! I have but a few comments ....
First of all, you have a great opening, and I am not sure why Wikipedia has it flagged as incomplete ... I'm not sure what I'd do here except maybe tie in the later parts of your article? Again, it looks pretty good to me ...
- Please, students, read WP:LEAD. The Lead section should give an overview of the most important points from the entire article below. It should stand alone so that if a reader reads only the Lead section, he or she will get a basic understanding of the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update - Gina has now added some good material to the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
PLOT SYNOPSIS Very thorough. I am totally unfamiliar with this version of the play, and you summarized it very well for me. My only comment is that your language, while beautiful, might be a bit cumbersome in places for plot synopsis purposes. Example, "emotional frenzy" might be too strong (emphasis on might) ... and the sentence that ends in "for love can be terribly destructive" could lose the adjective. You write extremely well, I am just unsure of some of your use of adjectives when describing a plot summary, which is generally more objective. Hope that makes sense.
I loved how many links you had to related articles! I need to work on that in my article, and I really appreciated this attention to detail that you put into it. You clearly had the needs of the reader in mind, which is so appreciated!
SOURCE MATERIAL I’m having a little bit of difficulty following you in this section. You present a lot of really valuable information, but I feel as if there perhaps needs to be another paragraph? My relative lack of familiarity with theatre history and this play in particular makes me a good test reader for this! It is simply a lot of good information tightly compacted. You might be able to make it more understandable simply by making structural changes as opposed to written one. Also, the sentences get a bit repetitive (“In _____’s version” gets repeated a couple of times) -- that might also help make the section clearer.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND RECEPTION Another great section with some great points. This is probably your strongest and most interesting section. A specific Shakespeare reference would be a good addition, as this is an excellent point. This is the section that can probably be expanded the most because there is a lot of good material here that can be extracted and explored in further detail, should you wish to. You could actually further divide this into subsections: one on Shakespeare, one on other playwrights. All up to you!
Overall, excellent work, Gina! Very enjoyable!
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
[edit]- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- See also WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
- I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
- You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
- Phaedra (Seneca) links to 1 disambiguation page (fix links).