| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my student is working on it this semester as part of a class project.
Thanks, Amy E Hughes (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Mcraab123. The article has come a long way. Congratulations! Here are my thoughts on work that could still be done:
- I would mention Aristotle in the Lead
- Be careful with your Wiki Links. Make sure that they are all actually going where you want them to. I redirected your two links to Poetics.
- The article discusses the change in scholarly thinking through different eras, but goes into very little depth regarding the arguments, who made them, and why. And the references are all from a 5 year time span though the fact says that opinion changed depending on the era of insight. Perhaps these books go into the past, but what about Modern Scholars?
- I am concerned about the amount of times you quote The Poetics. The most concerning part of this is that you are quoting parts of the book that have the most difference depending on the Translator. I think you need to be upfront about which translation you are using, and why, and then make mention of what words are translated differently. The attention spent on the term “Fable” is especially concerning. This is not at the forefront of scholarly translation and should probably be left out of the article.
- I had trouble figuring out when a quote was beginning and when it ended, when I was reading opinion and when I was reading fact. I also was not always sure as to why I was reading another passage from The Poetics when the one passage that mentions Hamartia is not mentioned.
Good Luck! OrangeZabbo (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Marni,
- I find your lead to be effective. You are missing a punctuation mark at the end of the lead though. Because your article discusses the subject in reference to the Poetics and Christianity, I do not mind that Aristotle is not mentioned in the lead.
- Paragraph that begins "Here Aristotle" is a little dense. Perhaps revisit your phrasing here and write to a general audience in simpler terms.
- The diagram and chart are very compelling visuals and support the article wonderfully.
- Towards the end of the article the very long "tragic error.." quote doesn't serve to neutrally state your case. Could you break it up more and put it into your own simplified language and offer alternatives to the bias it presents?
- Perhaps you could add Aristotle/The Poetics to the 'see also' section.
- Overall I think the structure and layout of the information is effective.
- You have a high quantity of citations and references, in my opinion, executed well.
Keep up the great work. Always Jessiechapman (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice work expanding the article. One place you could improve is in capitalization - per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, section headers are not supposed to be capitalized (beyond the first word and any proper nouns). Similarly, while Christian should be capitalized, theology should not.
You could also add some more wikilinks, especially to terms that not all readers might be familiar with (like Christian theology). Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)