| Toolbox |
|---|
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)
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)
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)
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)