Talk:Revenge tragedy

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): Msalgueiro, Mzanders135, Grichmond96. Peer reviewers: Randycoll, Tedseamans, Taymier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Tone of content
The tone of this content is not currently that of an encyclopaedia. It needs reworking with a more sober tone and avoiding bombastic forms of expression. It is also somewhat random in what it has had added to it - it is more a collection of paragraphs somewhat connected to revenge tragedy than a proper discussion of the genre. In particular it should be chronologically organised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcubed (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

List of revenge tragedies
It would be quite useful to include a list of plays (or their authors) commonly considered to form a part of this genre. It is distinctly odd that the article considers many secondary sources on this topic without referencing more primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcubed (talk • contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the redirect
I have deleted the redirect for this page that was redirecting it to the revenge play article. I believe revenge tragedy is the more standard classification and far more common in literature than revenge play. I will be adding information here soon for this article. Farrar80 (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Content added
I have added intro material, including definition and info on revenge tragedy as a genre (and the problem of early modern dramatic genres more broadly). I have also started a working list of generic conventions of revenge tragedy. Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done on this. I have left out Seneca from the beginning definition, though I am not sure if Senecan ties to revenge tragedy should go there or maybe under a new section called Origins (or something like that). Farrar80 (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I added two new citations, two images, and provided more specific information under the section of revenge tragedy as a genre. Farrar80 (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

In my second approach to evaluating the group’s article on Revenge tragedy, I found myself stuck in a situation similar to the first. The introduction piece may not be longer than five or six sentences and somehow it feels overwhelming to read. The author throws reference after reference at the reader with extremely brief descriptions that do not supply the audience with enough information to truly understand their significance. For instance, someone who has never heard of Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy, could not become well informed by a vague explanation. We can see that the author has extensive knowledge on these pieces of literature, but should be mindful that the audience is not always on the same train of thought. Perhaps, instead of listing off authors and plays, a section could be created to further elaborate on specific contributors to the revenge tragedy genre, focusing on one area of study at a time. This would make the article simpler without having to exclude important content. Lastly, I enjoy the generic conventions section, but it could use more textual evidence and literary examples to provide a more in depth understanding on these themes. Overall, the organization is quite choppy and should provide a little more basic information to let the text flow. More sections can always be added to increase complexity. Mzanders135 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While the article is not very long at all, the beginning seems to be filled with an immense amount of referencing. Once readers move to the next section of text, they are already slightly befuddled by what the introduction was aiming to tell them. After discussing this genre in class, I know that there is a lot more information that could be added to the article in both a descriptive and more in-depth way. The author knows the material they are talking about and have references to back themselves up; however, readers who happen to stumble upon this article might not be as knowledgeable of this genre. Simply adding more information and explanations would really improve this article. Grichmond96 (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

After analysing the article a second time with my group’s help, we concluded that the organization of it could be improved in a way that it just doesn’t start referencing and talking about authors, instead having a simple introduction about the real significance of revenge and how it is shown in the different famous plays. We decided it can have sections on the different plays with a brief summary and explanation, where the reader can identify the characteristics posted in the generic conventions part. Also some parts have a well ornamented vocabulary that sometimes could be hard for a basic reader to understand. The information it contains is quite enlightening and complete but it can be distributed in a better way to make the audience more captivated to continue in research about this interesting topic Msalgueiro (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I chose to add a new section on Lucius Seneca who is considered to be one of the first "revengers" in the history of the genre. The reason I thought this would be most helpful is because Thyestes is a play that helped me thoroughly understand the conventions of revenge tragedy myself. It outlines recurring themes of a vengeful and grotesque nature and is a good beginner's introduction to the topic. Atreus' and Thyestes' relationship is a perfect representation of how the revenge tragedy genre operates, which is why I felt it deserved a slightly more in depth explanation in this article. Mzanders135 (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a new section on William Shakespeare as a developer of Revenge Tragedy because I believe that his plays are magnificent examples to relate Revenge Tragedy characteristics. In Titus Andronicus you can easily identify and study the elements of Revenge Tragedy but also it gives you a huge field for discussion regarding Revenge,as the different details we mentioned in class. When I read Titus Andronicus I felt that each action that occurred was defining the characteristics of Revenge Tragedy. Basing this article on the audience that its going to read it, I think it would be much easier to have this brief examples of the elements in a way they can identify them very easily than having to related what they read to the characteristics, having the danger of missing an important detail. With this section people who read the article are more familiar to the plays and its understanding of the genre would be much fast and clear. Msalgueiro (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a new paragraph that touches on the gender differences in this genre. I think that the differences between the men and women are important to recognize in the plays because gender is a big topic. We have talked in class quite a bit about gender and the role it plays in revenge through different motives and ways. If someone was new to the genre of revenge tragedy, it would be important for them to pay attention to how the men and women are portrayed. Gender has and will always be an important topic in stories and it is interesting to see how people are viewed and characterized. Grichmond96 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

For my final touches, I went back and added some transitional sentences that would help guide a reader into or out of a section. I also provided a more elaborate reiteration where it seemed that the author left the reader hanging. For instance, instead of just ending the article with a random section, I decided to add a wrap up section. I basically worked to improve the fluidity of the article. Mzanders135 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In the final editing of our project I decided to add two hyperlinks to the article, I believe that rather taking the article to explain important concepts its easier to just add the hyperlink and make the audience engage in the theme and have to look the hyperlinked page to understand. This way you awake the interest of people in the theme and make them engage in further investigation if needed for a more complex research or investigation.Msalgueiro (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To further explore the importance of gender in the genre of revenge tragedy, I added onto the section for gender controversies. I decided to outline the ways in which female sexuality is something that enforces these controversies. I thought it would be important to explain the methods used to achieve this status of gender inequality within the texts that are categorized as revenge tragedy. Mzanders135 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello friends! I am here to assess your article and provide feedback. Overall, I definitely agree with what everyone put in the talk page. I think the beginning was rather abundant with its references, but Maggie did a wonderful job of making everything flow smoothly. Good job! It was clear you all agreed with the lack of organization in the article, as well as the need for simplicity. Obviously I'm unaware as to what the article was before everyone got their hands on it, but I thought it flowed nicely and transitioned well. Minor things I came across: Gabriella and Manuel's citations are wrong, and missing quite a few components. I recommend manually putting in all the information required, and I believe Danielle sent out an announcement with details directions. I think each of you added excellent supplementary sections which will really help the reader understand the article and Revenge Tragedy as a whole. Manuel- your section needs to be looked over once or twice for syntactic and minor grammatical errors, such as irregular capitalization, "it's" versus "is" and small things like that. I also noticed you referenced the hyperlinks you added, but did not mention which ones. Maybe you could clear that up on the talk page for us? As for the whole group, I would suggest looking over the grammar of the entire piece to double check the use of commas, apostrophes, and other grammar devices. Other than that, I thought you guys polished the article well and gave great information for the future readers. Taymier (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I like what you guys have done with the place. From the contributions I have seen the article has definitely been improved. As Taylor mentioned there are a few minor grammar errors and some citation issues. It is a lot easier to manually enter them when aiming for the proper MLA citation. In the event you add anything else remember to look out for links that only work for USF students these aren’t acceptable. I think you guys could maybe give the areas you didn’t add another look in case there might be any sentences you could adjust that you possibly missed before. Remember to look over your work and compare it to the rubric our Professor provided this sometimes helps you notice any errors. I haven’t seen any but it doesn’t hurt to check again. Overall good job guys you've added a lot of information that'll be very helpful for other students and people seeking general knowledge.Randycoll (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Gender controversies and female sexuality
The section topic is worthwhile. However, the content itself is commentary (theory, polemics, etc) by a wikipedian. Counter-examples are not mentioned, and there are ample counter-examples within the genre. There is only one citation. The quality is fairly poor: this reads like work from an undergraduate essay.

I do not know wikipedia etiquette, so I don't think I should delete the section myself.

73mmmm (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC) 73mmmm


 * I agree that it reads like an analytical essay. There should be more references. Firezzasd (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted this section due to it containing analysis/critical theory that is not substantiated by professionals in the field, and due to it containing no acknowledgement of counter-argument (for example, about female characters in Ancient Greek drama). 73mmmm (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)