Wikipedia:Peer review/Shakespearean tragedy/archive1

Shakespearean tragedy

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… It is a required part of my class assignment. I'd love feedback on: -If the article is achieving neutrality -If the current content is clear and supported by the writing -What you feel is missing...in addition to the blank sections currently lacking content which I will try to write in the next week Thanks, Jessiechapman (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few things I noticed:

I like the introduction a lot. The first sentence is concise and clear, and it's good that you bring in some ideas that are expanded on later.
The body is well structured, and I understand why each section is included. Maybe include Shakespeare himself in the Elizabethan tragedy section? I found that his own life was reflected in the late romances, and I think why he wrote the plays when he did would add some historical context.
Since "the problem plays" doesn't go to a page with content, is it needed? I like that you have a lot of other links, though.
I like your image a lot. Since you can't include all of the plays in one image, the First Folio brings them all together nicely.
The writing flows nicely, and is comprehensive. I definitely see the story you are telling.
I'm impressed with all your references, but I'm not sure which facts come from which references. Will you be doing citations later?
On the whole, the article is pretty clear, but I was a little confused by what you mean by "qualifiers." It wasn't until I actually read the section that I understood. Maybe clarify that heading a bit more.
You have definitely achieved neutrality. I don't hear your voice in what you've written.

Hope this helps, Deliirving (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job expanding that article. Just a few comments

Some of the section titles are a bit long: "Qualifiers of Shakespearean tragedy, play classification" could be "Qualifiers of Shakespearean tragedy".
There are two empty sections. If you don't plan to add content to those sections, feel free to remove them.
Terms like drama and play (specifically play (theatre), using a piped link [[play (theatre)|play]]) could be linked in the lead; while they are common terms, there are sure to be some people who see something like that and wonder "what exactly qualifies as drama". Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtful, comprehensive expansion on this article. Here are a few ideas to mull over:

As you look for where to add citations, consider the places you mention debates or disputes among scholars.
The first citation on First Folio is a note as opposed to a reference. With your wealth of knowledge on the subject, consider using citations like these as well.
Instead of "English history", History of England links to a juicy, C-class Wiki.
I notice both peer reviewers before me mention the title to the "qualifiers" section. Consider introducing a form of the word "qualify" into the end of the lede section to help segue. I think the word works where you have it; what "qualifies" as a Shakespeare Tragedy is vital to the article.
Great idea to use footnotes.
Consider an External Links section.
Keep an eye out for Oxford commas.

Great work! I look forward to seeing how you go with the rest. Good luck! Mcraab123 (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]