Wikipedia:Peer review/Rabinal Achí/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review so that I can get some constructive feedback on what I need to complete. Some fields are missing, but I would like to get some thoughts on how to better the structure or make-up of this article.
Thanks, Emmaosmundson (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]A few comments:
- There's no need to put citations in the lead -- it's not wrong, but as a general rule everything in the lead should also be in the body of the article, since the lead is a summary, and so the citation will be in the body. That means you can eliminate citations in the lead, which makes it less cluttered for the reader. (Direct quotes, or anything controversial, should still be cited, but that doesn't apply here.)
- I'd avoid using words like "vibrant"; it's not a neutral term. "Colorful", which you use in the lead, is a good choice.
- The structure doesn't feel quite right yet. For example, you have a description of the instrumentation in the origins section. I'd combine the early recording with the origin, and then move the description of the instrumentation into the performance section.
- You have a couple of uncited sentences, at the end of the "Early recording" and a few more further down the article.
- At one point you say it's "from the fifteenth century", and then say it "has been around since hte 1600s". Which is it?
- If it predates colonization, then it can't have originally honored Saint Paul. Do we know how it came to be associated with Paul?
- I think you could expand the plot section a little -- there are only four sentences that give details at the moment.
- Can we say anything about staging? Is it always staged at the same location? Are the actors drawn from the local population or is it a professional performance?
- Are any pictures of the performance available? Perhaps via UNESCO? Or a picture of Rabinal?
- I see that the Tedlock source has over 100 pages dedicated to the play; is there more than can be taken from Tedlock, or other sources? If that much has been written about the play, we should try to expand the article. How about a critical commentary section?
I think a little copyediting wouldn't hurt, but since these comments might lead to changes I'll hold off until you respond. Generally this looks like a good start to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)