Talk:Phaedra (Seneca)

Character section
The Theatre Project's article structure guidelines suggest that characters should be described, to the extent that they are important, in the Plot (sometimes called Synopsis) section, and so a separate character list section may not be needed. I agree with this, as I think the cast list, especially a short one, is redundant and tends to cause information to be put in the cast list section that belongs in the plot summary or in analysis sections. However, where there are a lot of characters, and the reader may get confused as to who is who, as in Hamlet, I agree that the cast list is helpful. Also, if you know who the original actors were, or the actors in other major productions, you can have a casting section, listing the person's name next to the character name. Note that the project's article structure guidelines only represent a general consensus of those persons who considered the question at some point in time and are only advisory. Note that some of Wikipedia's highest-quality play articles, like The Country Wife, do not have a character section even though the play has about a dozen characters (although it does have a clever image that shows the original cast list). Compare The Relapse. See also Proserpine (play) (no cast list). I suggest that you consider whether all of the information that is in the character section is already included in the plot section, or whether it should be. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation. As the Character List did not add any information that wasn't covered in the plot section, I have removed it per your suggestion. Gdirado (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mythology vs Seneca's characters
We link the character names to articles about their mythical counterparts. If you have any sources that support this, you might have a section, instead of the above section, that analyzes any differences between these characters as presented in the play with the standard descriptions of the mythological characters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Productions
Do we know about any professional productions of this play? If so, the article should describe them, or if there are a lot, then the major ones. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions Ssilvers! I have had difficulty finding sources that reference historical productions of Phaedra. Should I just list the modern (within the past 10 years or so) examples I have been able to find? Gdirado (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, go ahead and discuss the productions that you know about, to get the section started. You should say when and where they were produced, who directed, name any major stars or designers involved, say how long the run lasted, whether they were successful or otherwise influential, did they use music, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, now you have listed some productions, but you need to make it into narrative paragraphs. Can you find a review (or several reviews) of each production that gives the critic's reactions to the production and to the work itself?  If so, add refs to the review(s) and possibly some pithy quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead section
The Lead section needs to be checked for two issues. First, it needs to give an overview/summary of all of the material in the body of the article. For example, I put back in some description of the difference between this version of Phaedra and other versions based on the text below, but I tried to track more closely how it is described in the body of the article. Points that are discussed at any length in the text below need to be summarized in the Lead, per WP:LEAD. Second, all of the information in the Lead needs to be stated (and expanded upon) in the body, and there are some statements in the Lead that are not explored in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good job! I tweaked it a bit, but this is the right idea.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Assessment
As the article has improved substantially, I have promoted the article to C-class (see the banners above). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Layout/Sections
The layout of the article flowed very efficiently except for the productions section. This section is distracting from the rest of the article. The way that the information is laid out and sectioned off is clear and easy to understand. The source material section is over represented. Maybe there should be more focus on the theme analysis. There is not enough information on the themes themselves. Maria416 (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)