 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jring333.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment
editThis article is completely inadequate. It is out of date, full of errors and badly structured. It needs to be completely rewritten, and unfortunately I do not have time to do so. But it would be unfortunate if anyone believed that this article was worthy of inclusion in any kind of work of reference.
Mystery Man 19:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
16 years later... same story. I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to fix this, but it seems to be dreadfully biased. Agree on full rewrite. Oliviasjhall (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism
editThis page has been badly vandalized. I don't care about liturgical drama but if you do maybe change it. I already tried notifying the administrators vandalism page but they didn't do anything.--74.138.83.10 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if vandalism is the reason for the number of missing terms I would have expected to find, but surely a discussion of <<quem queritis>>, Fleury, and troping in general, with a longer discussion of early Easter plays, should have appeared.
Discussions of points of view bewteen secondary writers like Young, Chambers, Harding, et al should also be given, as well as references to the work of Smolden, Corbet, and Lange, just for starters. Translations and transcriptions by a variety of others deserve attention as well.
The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is useful for some kinds of information but it predates the use of more verifiable historical information on the plays (and many other things) by nearly a century now. I agree with the other writer above that this article is insufficient, and should be taken at most as a possible viewpoint on the plays from a well-intended but incompletely informed source.
I, also, could be enticed to write a replacement, but would need the time to do so. I'm just working to get a single article out on a few newly found references to one cathedral's presentation in France, and that's taken long enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.104.12 (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- On a quick look I can't see that stuff has been removed by vandals. I think it remains the CE text with some additions. We don't seem to have any writers more expert than yourself, so I think you should certainly get on with it - I hope that constitutes enticement. Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, four years later and from a very different computer I happen on this article again; I'm still seeing the same problems and writing articles on the same works. Enticement....hmmmm......is this a paying gig? Can I cite in it my CV? I suppose at least I could append a bibliography, since I've already got one, and do a quick discussion of sources. Maybe in four more years' time...or sooner.198.176.188.201 (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)