Talk:Dramatism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Mgmaliska.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Annnnayu, Amsensenbrenner.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MooreC611.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): As4574. Peer reviewers: Lyjslife, Chinchin66.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Andyxjbao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Andy, Great job working on Dramatism! This page has a thorough review of the principles of the theory. I really like your additions of the "Other Applications Sections." It brings a very real understanding of the theory that I definitely agree was missing in previous versions of this article. I also think the introduction is very strong. It is succinct and clear. A few suggestions for you regarding other things that could be improved on the page. The page has an uncanny similarity to our text book. The sections seem closely mirrored to the sections in the book and the writing is very academic. I would suggest considering how you could rework some of the content so it's less rigid and more consumable to the average reader. Many of the sections are long lists of terms and assumptions. I would recommend reworking these to add more context to each section (ie: explaining what those elements are and why they're important) and making them more fluid instead of rigid lists. In terms of style, I would recommend removing rhetorical questions (see: Metaphor of Drama section) and also superfluous quotation marks. There were a lot of quotation marks around words in the Other Applications Section that didn't seem like they were serving any purpose. Also, I was a little confused by the Notes and References sections. Are they serving the same or different purposes? A cursory look made it seem like all of the References were also in the Notes. I would suggest cleaning up that section and fixing any of the broken citations. One last very picky thing -- all of the in line links on this page are bold but I think on other pages they are not. It certainly does not change the readability or utility of this page but it may just be inconsistent with Wikipedia's style. Overall great work! A few stylistic changes could really make this page stand out even more! Ef527 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Reply to Ellen Hi, Ellen. Thanks so much for your thoughtful suggestions! And you are right, the words in the previous version are hard to understand because the theory itself is hard to understand...I'm trying to rewrite them but I worried about it would cause something not accurate due to my misunderstanding. Do you have any suggestions about that? For the Notes and Reference, does your page only have one part of them? Since I saw some of other pages have these two part - note is for the citation, and reference is for the works that contribute to the page, and what confuses me is, I thought only the direct quotation need to be cited, and if you are rewriting, you don't have to cite, but add the source on the reference part instead, right? And it is hard to tell what is original quotation and what is rewriting in the previous version..should I work on it, too? Many thanks. Andyxjbao (talk)Andyxjbao —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Andy! So I really love your edits to the Wikiepdia page on Dramatism, particularly those that were added within the section on 'Other Applications'. I can tell you spent time thinking about what to add to the information. Looking at the page, however, I came to one conclusion: I am atill a little unclear about Dramatism as a whole, which might be a problem. I think the core of this is that Dramatism as a communications theory is derived from the actual definition of the drama. Although this is alluded to in the 'Metaphor of A Drama' section, I would make it as explicit as possible. What is a drama? What are it's components? While I don't think you need to extrapolate too much, I think a section on the history of the theory and its origins would help provide some context. Additionally after reading, I found the 'Dramatist Pentad' to be a critical element of this page. I would suggest moving it up so that it is not buried under all of the other Key Concepts. Overall, I think the page has some great information, however there needs to be some context around a LOT of the info. It seems like there is an assumption about the reader. I think it would be best to provide a little more detail about each section (for example, under 'Utility' the editors went directly into the statement using the names Dennis Brissett and Charles Edgley. Who are they in the field and why is their researhc any more important than other scholars who have studied the theory?). So far I think you've done an interesting job with additional content, I would now, however, focus on context :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpg23 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi,

Please use this section to add your reflection on my 'Dramatism' page. Here are some questions that you can help me answer:

1. What do you think of the page in general? Is it easy to read through, and does the different sections help explaining the theory clearly? 2. I personally do not like the "Other Application Fields" section, the idea of having this section is good but I do not think there are enough information included that makes it necessary. Do you agree with me? If so, please tell me what you suggest to make thins section more beneficial to the page? 3. What other suggestions or comments do you have for me, so I can have a better wikipedia page?

Overall, I am planning to focus on the five elements of drama: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. For each element, I am planning to expand on the definition and add examples for each element to help explain it better. Also, I would like to work more on the 'Critiques' section, because I think there is much more to add to this section of the page.

--Nha33 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
This page is well organized. It is also very simple. I think that makes it easy for a non-academic reader to read through, but I also think there is more that can be expanded upon. The pentad is a main part of Dramatism and I think it is organized well on the page, but it is titled wrong on the page. To maintain wiki requirements it should read "Dramatistic pentad" instead of "Dramatistic Pentad." I also think you could flesh out the pentad a bit more. I think this could be done by either expanding the definitions of each point of the pentad or using an example that would help describe each point and how they relate to each other. There is an example in our text book that you could reference if you can't think of one on your own. I found that reading an example of how everything works together really helped to grasp the concept. Also, I think the "Critcs" section should be changed to "Critiques" and that this can be expanded on as well. I think Dramatism has faced more critiques that what is listed on the page. Ajt70 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ai-Ling's peer review
Hi, Noura! I think your plan will be useful to improve this page by expanding definition and example of five elements of drama which are core components of the Dramatism. My general impression about the page is that its contents are comprehensive but lack depth. For instance, there are many subtitles under the part of utility and application. However, there are only few sentences to explain minor fields. It would be great if you can find sources to provide examples in the theory's application fields and critique.

Besides, I am confused with the subtitles in the "Identification" part. The subtitle like "Can be falsified to result in homophily" is not formal enough. The " homophily" can be concise and clear to represent this paragraph's idea. It would be great if you rewrite the four subtitles under "Identification" to make readers better understand the features and process of identification. You can also make new categories for this part's information or combine them in a more logical way.

Other advise I want to give you is that you can change the position of William Shakespeare's words in the introduction part (may be change it to the bottom right) in order to make the layout of the introduction more beautiful. More pictures in utility or application part will enhance visual effect on your page.

I am looking forward to your final work! If you have any question after editing, it is my pleasure to provide you with my comments or suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw1014 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Adri's Peer Review
Hi-

First, good for you... Dramatism is a HARD theory so well done for choosing it! So overall the page feels a little choppy... it has so many sections and subsections, but they're mostly pretty short. This makes the page feel a little disjointed to me. Perhaps you could look at expanding some sections, and combining others? If you could do that in a natural way, I think it would really help the flow of the page. Also, in the introduction, there are a few long, run on sentences. If you could rephrase those into separate thoughts, I think it would make the page more inviting from the beginning and help with comprehension.

I agree with you about the "Other Application Fields" section. It seems like a very good idea, but it is not quite there on the execution. I think if you chose 1-3 of the sections, and expanded on them, it would really help. That way, it doesn't feel like, "Hm... this is interesting but there's not enough here for me to learn." Pick your favorites and add on to them! That way it's topics you're interested in so it's not as tedious. I also agree that it would be great if you worked on the critiques section. When we did the reading for class, I thought the criticisms were the most interesting part of the theory. It would be very engaging if you expanded that section.

A quick note: under the Key Concepts, they are first listed: identification, the dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption, but then they are discussed: dramatistic, identification, and guilt-redemption. You might want to put them in the same order for both (little change). I thought the pentad and the guilt sections were pretty clear. I learned something from both of them. However, the identification section was a little harder for me to understand. This is the subsection where it might be helpful if you combined a few of them? Or perhaps if you could find a different way to put them? I think your other ideas are exactly what the page needs, but if you could spend a little time on the identification, it would help with clarity of theory.

Overall, great job! Keep it up :) Ang59 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Ang59 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from ML1462
Hi Noura! I love the structure of Dramatism page and the way you organize it. However, I think some points need to be added since Dramatism is a really complex theory with a wide scope. First of all, I think the very important concept of consubstantiation because the idea of consubstantiality are closely related to the following section "Guilt". As it is said in our textbook, consubstantiality are related to the guilt/redemption cycle because guilt can be assuaged as a result of identification and division. Secondly, I think it would be better to change the title "Guilt" into "Guilt/Redemption Cycle". Guilt itself is just one part of the concept. It is the whole cycle that explains human relations and our motives. Thirdly, personally, I don't like the "Other Application" as you do. My suggestion is that you could move it to a sub-section in the Critique because the wide application of the theory could be seen as its Heurism, which could fall into the category of Critique. Hope my suggestion could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ml1462 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Test Comment on Introduction 10/10/17
The introduction on this page could benefit from some rewording. Some of the sentences are grammatically iffy or run ons. The quote was an interesting way to lead it off, and I'm sure with some work it could be a fabulous introduction!

Johnjaha13 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review from Valentina
Hey Grace! Nice work! Your page is already tied together so well, and not overloaded with information. I can see why you have came up with those three specific goals for this page, and I do agree with them. I noticed that you have made some edits in your introduction and critiques section. On the overall structure of the page, here are some of my recommendations. Your introduction looks fine to me, as it cuts to the chase right away. I think it could be helpful if you move some of the background information on the theory into a separate section named backgrounds/history. In that case, you can have a short and sweet definition of the theory as the opening of the pages and followed by a section on the history of this theory in detail. Moreover, I am not very familiar with this theory, but I was wondering whether you would like to add an section on research and methods (if there are related information) that would better complete the page. That would be my content-wise recommendations. Specifically speaking, I think you could edit the style of the Critique section by bolding the subcategories to maintain the consistency of style from previous sections. That would be all of the recommendations from me and BEST OF LUCK! Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentinaaaaal (talk • contribs) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review from Zach
Hey Grace! Nice job on your edits. I've spent a considerable amount of time on this page during the past week while working on my Dramatism presentation, and found a lot of useful material here. I've looked at the goals you made for yourself, and I think you did a good job of meeting them, but I have a few things to mention that I think could help you going forward. The introduction flows pretty well, but I think it could use a brief mention of symbolic activity, which is incredibly important in Burke's writing on Dramatism. He believed that the symbolic act of language is what helps to create societal hierarchies, which are strong producers of guilt among people. I found an interesting article during my research about a controversy within Dramatism that may be helpful to include on this page. The controversy centers around whether or not Dramatism should be taken literally or metaphorically. Burke argues for the former, and the author agrees. I will go ahead and add the reference to the citations; feel free to add a sentence or a section on it! I also like what you've done with the critiques section by breaking up the different parts. It flows well and explains the critiques in an easy-to-understand manner. And props to you for adding the part about sex and gender within Dramatism. You made some great points that I hadn't previously considered. I hope my comments have been helpful! Good luck finishing this assignment!

Zach Zdomercct (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review for Grace CCT
I really enjoyed how this page was sectioned out. Effective use of the different headings is very important for a multi-faceted theory like Dramatism. I just have a couple thoughts for further editing. One, I'm not sure the page needs both a "Notes" and a "References" section. Most other pages I've seen only have a "References" section which contains the information found in this page's "Notes" section. Something worth looking in to. Maybe the "References" section can become a "Further Reading" section? Secondly, I think the "Assumptions" section could benefit from a slight rewording, especially the first assumption which features heavy use of adverbs. Lastly, the "Critiques" section mentions that there are four main critiques to Dramatism but only goes on to talk about 3. This might be just a simple typo. I also think the "Critiques" section could be expanded, especially the discussion of the scope of the theory and how this poses problems for some theorists. Good luck with the rest of your edits!

Johnjaha13 (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fall 2018 Communication Theory and Frameworks Course Peer Review - References Added
I appreciate that there is not too much wording in the opening paragraph. It provides the who, what, when and where without going too deep into the origin.

Graphics: Due to the page only having one graphic, it feels very text heavy. As you scroll the page, you feel overwhelmed by the amount of text as there is no graphics to engage readers. Consider adding a flow chart or a graphic that illustrate Burke’s process of guilt.

Applications Section: Consider adding a general overview to each field of study currently listed on the page (ie, english, popular art, politics, etc) illustrating how that field applied the theory. Currently, there is a sentence describing which researchers used the theory to complete their particular research. Before reading about how the researcher applied the theory in their field of study, I would like to know how the theory can generally be applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WMMaddox (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference added: Burke, K. (n.d.). Dramatism and logology. Communication Quarterly, 33(2), 89–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378509369584 "In this essay, Kenneth Burke re‐examines his distinction between dramatism and logology which he proposed in 1968, Dramatism is treated as a technique for analyzing language as a mode of action in which specialized nomenclatures are recognized, each with particular ends and insights. Logology is cast as the study of the knowledge acquired by the human being's aptitude for learning communication." Reference added: Kimberling, C. (1982). Kenneth Burke’s dramatism and popular arts. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.--WMMaddox (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review from Kay Jiaqi Zeng (CCT)
Hi!

This page is clear with reasonable logic between each section. There are layers of different headings that can be easily recognized of their roles in organizing the content.

Firstly, I appreciate that there is visual aid (a picture) used to explain the relationship between the five key elements of human drama - act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. Using visual aid is a good way to break the ice of too much wording in most of Wikipedia pages. So, I suggest there can be more visual aids like pictures, videos, or even gifs to explain concepts involved.

Secondly, I really love that there is a section for critiques toward this theory and is also well-organized. However, on one hand, the headings of the critique can be more exact which can convey the idea more efficiently. For example, the first one, “Scope” can be replaced by “Too broad in scope”, and “Parsimony” can be replaced by “Lacks parsimony” and same for “Utility”. On the other hand, there can be more explained in the contents under every heading in the critiques, especially adding more examples or evidence to, for instance, Parsimony.

Lastly, it is relatively comprehensive that other application fields are listed in the page. But there may be more to extend as sociology and psychology.

Funkayever (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Adriana's Peer Review
'''1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

I really like how the article lays out the assumptions one should take into consideration when applying or understanding the theory- the assumptions are clearly laid out and ties in other theories and hypothesis to create a full picture. The lead section is also well done- the only thing I would consider doing is to touch upon each of the headings that are going to be in the article. Dramatistic pentad is described in detail, so why not summarize the “utility” or the “application fields” as well to lay out the article.

'''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? '''

- A lead section that is easy to understand (See above)

- A clear structure

There is a good base structure to the article but there are a few sections where I had to do a “second look” to fully understand the content. Under “Identification”, there is a subheading titled “The Chief notion of a ‘new rhetoric’” that has an “edit source” next to it. The problem is, the subheadings that come after do not have an “edit source”. The “edit source” creates confusion in the contents section in the beginning of the article- showing only one subheading under identification when there really are 4. Either change this so there is no confusion or make all the small bolded titles subheadings to smooth out the structure.

- Balanced coverage/ Neutral Content

I immediately turn to the critiques section in order to review whether this article has a balanced approach to the subject at hand. In this case, the critiques are a bit dry. There is barely any content under “scope” and only one sentence under “Parsimony”. I would make this a priority given that there is little information under both of these headings. Another section that should have more content (given that this is a communications theory) is the “communication” subheading. The content is very outdated given that the theory is applied to MySpace. Definitely include more recent social media platforms as examples of how this theory can be applicable. - Reliable sources

The initial sources look good but there definitely should be more sources (only 49 as of now). This will gradually increase as you put more content in.

'''3.What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? '''

I would prioritize content and structure as the two things you should focus on for improving this article. The initial sections are good but as you go down the article, the content decreases. Definitely fix the glitch that is happening under “Identification”.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

One idea that could prove useful for my theory is grouping the “application” of the theory into categories as done on this page- English, Popular Art, Politics, Communication and Culture. My page has a Social Media and New Media which could be under the same category. Amsensenbrenner (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

CCT peer edit 2019
This page developed in a very logic and clear way, and it is easily perceived by people who has never touched this field before. The key components have been included, and headings are closely attached to the content. But I still think there are two fields that can be improved. First, in assumption section, the second one introduces the importance of language in Burka’s thinking, which is exactly correct; however, I think this part involves some knowledge of linguistics, and it is a little bit hard for non-academic people who lack basic linguistic knowledge, and they may get confused about how words and language limit human beings’ perception and imagination. So I think it is necessary to add a general introduction to some of Sassure’s linguistic theory and Ludwig Wiyygenstein. Second, dramatism is useful for us to see through society from a very unique angle, and I was glad to see sociology is cooperated in the field of other application. But since it connects with social issues, it is inappropriate to only highly generalize how dramatism is useful for this field. In my view, it would be better to add actual and practical applications in it, so readers can comprehensive this theory and its application better. Aijia Qin (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer review 2019
Hi there,

The Wikipedia page for Dramatism is a well-organized article with detailed explanation. The “Contents” column seems very orderly with a series of numbers when I opened the page for the first time. The section of “Other application field” and “Critiques” make the whole page pretty comprehensive. Personally speaking, there are some problems that I think you could consider to improve. 1. I think the definition of Dramatism in the first two paragraphs could be more straightforward? The citation of Burke that the author put on is great but it would be better if add some explanation to it. 2. The “Background” section started with the question seems a little bit inappropriate for me. Then the author answered with “According to West…” and I’m confused and thinking about who is West? Why is he associated with the topic? I think it should be written in full name. I think you could make it clearer and more logical. 3. The subheading of each section is too much. Especially in the “Identification” section, all four subheadings are about seven to eight words, which made readers feel difficult to reach the key point. I think you could consider to remove that part or transfer or convert it to another section so that readers can understand it at first glance. Inni44 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi!

This is a good introduction page about Dramatism that offers a clear frame of its history, application and critiques. I am very impressed about how concise and explicit each example is written and concluded. In general, I don't think this page needs any correction or improvement. But if I am being really captious, I would ask for more applications introduction of different culture and different languages. All these information are mainly come from English-based culture and might has its own limitations. Maybe some simple illustrations can also be added on the page. In short, I really like this page and I learned a lot from it, thank you for everyone's effort! Lyjslife (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi there! It's a so well-developed page and I don't think there's any obvious shortcomings in it. The whole structure is logically smooth. Every section is proper connected. The sections are well-arranged. The subheadings are also related to each other. Such coherent arrangment also makes viewers visually enjoy the whole page. It's comfortable and reader-friendly. In my view, if this page could add more visual samples to illustrate some abstract meanings, that would also be newer-friendly and easier to understand. Also, the sources are reliable and academic, which makes this page more credible. As for the Other application fields part, the proportion is kind of unbalanced. Like "culture" and "popular art" these two parts are quite shorter than others. That could be improved with more instances to make this part more balanced to my point of view. Chinchin66 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)