User:DubiousJosh/sandbox

2020 Sandbox things
This year is 2020.

Material to be added to Cymbeline article
After the 1611 performance mentioned by Simon Forman, there is no record of production until 1634, when the play was revived at court for Charles I and Henrietta Maria. This production was noted as being "well likte by the kinge." In 1728 John Rich staged the play with his company at Lincoln's Inn Fields, with emphasis placed on the spectacle of the production rather than the text of the play. Theophilus Cibber revived Shakespeare's text in 1744 with a performance at the Haymarket. Some scholars indicate that Cibber put on another performance in 1746, and another in 1758.

In 1761, David Garrick edited a new version of the text. It is recognized as being close to the original Shakespeare, although there are several differences. Changes included the shortening of Imogen's burial scene and the shortening of the entire fifth act, including the removal of Posthumus' dream. Garrick's text was first performed the November of that year, starring Garrick himself as Posthumus. Several scholars have indicated that Garrick's Posthumus was much liked. Valerie Wayne notes that Garrick's changes made the play more nationalistic, representing a trend in perception of Cymbeline during that period. Garrick's version of Cymbeline would prove popular; it was staged a number of times over the next few decades.

Also in 2012 the South Sudan Theatre Company staged Cymbeline in Juba Arabic for the Shakespeare's Globe "Globe to Globe" festival. It was translated by Derik Uya Alfred and directed by Joseph Abuk. Connections between the content of the play and South Sudan's own political struggle have been drawn by the producers, as well as some scholars. Overall, the production was well received by audiences and critics. Critic Matt Trueman gave the production four out of five stars, saying "The world's youngest nation seems delighted to be here and, played with this much heart, even Shakespeare's most rambling romance becomes irresistible."

Summary
I will be making edits to the "Performance History" section of Cymbeline. In particular I will be revamping the first paragraph, and adding a new performance put on in 2012. The first paragraph as is includes a brief reference to the 1610/11 performance, then brings up a 1634 performance done for Charles I, Thomas D'Urfey's adaptation, John Rich's production, one of Theophilius Cibber's productions, and David Garrick's revised text.

There are two citations. The first references The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, which supports both the 1634 performance for Charles I, and also the mention of D'Urfey's adaptation. The second is a reference to A Shakespeare Companion, 1550-1950 by FE Halliday. This supports the claims regarding Garrick's text that it follows, however there are several later comments about Garrick's production/text that are not supported by this source.

As for my work, I intend to reword the first sentence about the 1610/11 performance to better lead into the rest of the performance history. I will do this by mentioning the lack of record for performance of Cymbeline between 1611 and 1634, referencing The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare, as well as Valerie Waynes introduction to the Arden edition. I then plan to add a sentence regarding evidence that the king enjoyed the play, citing a book by EK Chambers. I will add a citation for D'Urfey's performance, again referencing The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare.

The sentence on John Rich's performance that is currently in the article is not sourced, so I sought one out. On finding a book that seemed reliable, I also found that the sentence in the article was an uncomfortably close paraphrase of what was written in this book. So, I rephrased that bit, and cited it up. The production by Theophilius Cibber that is mentioned is also not sourced, and in seeking out sources I found that Cibber had put on two other productions of Cymbeline. I wrote these into the article, although mentions of the 1758 performance were not ubiquitous, so I worded my revision to try and reflect this.

Since Valerie Wayne stresses the significance of Garrick's text in her introduction to the Arden edition, I separated the mention of Garrick into a new paragraph. Clarification was necessary with respect to Garrick as well, since he both edited a version of the text and also played Posthumus in several productions. In order to coney this, I began by explicitly mentioning Garrick's text and describing its relationship to the original Shakespeare, citing a 2005 version of Cymbeline in which the editors discussed Garrick. Since there was already a description of Garrick's changes to the play which seemed reasonable and quite accurate, I tried to leave that as intact as possible. I then explicitly discussed the performance Garrick participated in and the response to it. Citations for this included an 1890 book which had a cast list for Garrick's initial production, FE Halliday's book, and the book I referenced for John Rich's performance. After this, I mentioned some of Valerie Wayne's scholarship on the way that Garrick's changes related to nationalism (I felt this fit well in the narrative, but I think I might be overstepping my bounds a little with this bit). The final sentence of the paragraph regards the way that Garrick's version of the text was restaged many times before the end of the century.

In addition to these changes, I also plan on adding a performance put on by the South Sudan Theatre Company in 2012. Sources include an essay by Christine Matzke, several online news articles, a book by Edward Wilson-Lee, and Valerie Wayne's introduction to the Arden edition. It is a relatively plain section, describing the basics of the production (date, producers, language, location, context), a little bit about what motivated the production, and some about the response to the production. The decision to include this performance was motivated by its recency, the presence of several sources, and the lack of coverage regarding international productions of Cymbeline.

Actual drafted paragraphs
After the performance mentioned by Forman, there is no record of production until 1634, when the play was revived at court for Charles I and Henrietta Maria. The performance was noted as being "well likte by the kinge." In the Restoration era, Thomas D'Urfey staged an adaptation of Cymbeline, titled The Injur'd Princess, or The Fatal Wager. In 1728 John Rich staged the play with his company at Lincoln's Inn Fields, placing emphasis on the material aspects of the production rather than the text of the play. Theophilus Cibber revived Shakespeare's text in 1744 with a performance at the Haymarket. Several scholars indicate that Cibber put on another performance in 1746, and another in 1758.

In 1761, David Garrick edited a new version of the text. It is recognized as being close to the original Shakespeare, although there are several differences. In particular, Garrick shortened Imogen's burial scene as well as the entire fifth act, including the omission of Posthumus' dream. Garrick's text was first performed the November of that year, starring Garrick himself as Posthumus. Several scholars have indicated Garrick's Posthumus was much liked. Valerie Wayne notes that Garrick's changes made the play more nationalistic, representing a trend in perception of Cymbeline during that period. Garrick's version of Cymbeline would prove popular and be staged a number of times over the next few decades.

In 2012 the South Sudan Theatre Company staged Cymbeline in Juba Arabic at the Globe Theatre in London for its "Globe to Globe" festival. It was translated by Derik Uya Alfred, and directed by Joseph Abuk. Connections between the content of the play and South Sudan's own political struggle have been drawn by the producers, as well as some scholars. Overall, the production was well received by audiences and critics. Writing for The Guardian, critic Matt Trueman gave the production four out of five stars, saying "The world's youngest nation seems delighted to be here and, played with this much heart, even Shakespeare's most rambling romance becomes irresistible."

Cymbeline Drafting
This content has been moved to User:AliENGL304/newsandbox.

Content
Nothing in the article seems to be off topic. The length of the plot summary strikes me as a little distracting, but that does not seem to be abnormal for film articles. There is nothing regarding the production of the film, which seems to be a pretty serious shortcoming (it even has a little note asking for additions). There might be room to find information regarding the production in the special features for the Criterion DvD, or elsewhere.

Both the "Reception" and "Home Media" sections seem quite complete, with respect to content. Perhaps "Reception" could do with a little more information(I think a mention of the Academy Award stuff from the lead might be worth mentioning here), but I do not know if available sources would allow for this.

There may also be an opportunity to mention how del Toro went on to work frequently with Guillermo Navarro, Cronos being their first collaboration.

The external links are quite extensive, which is good.

Tone
For much of the article, the tone is appropriate. The exception is the "Reception" section, which seems to make several skewed claims. The first two sentences of the "Critical response" subsection are not sourced where they are initially written. It seems as if there are some sources that support the claims later, but the initial wording still seems to be a little bit more intense than it needs to be.

The "Box office" section also concludes with a sentence that appears unsourced. None of the links seems to directly support the claim that critics "felt it deserved a wider release."

Some general edits for concision/readability might be in order, although there is nothing that sticks out horribly so maybe not.

Sourcing
I realize I already covered this a little bit in tone, HOWEVER there are a few more notes to make. Almost all of the article is well sourced. Asiding the aforementioned questionable claims, the "Reception" section links/references everything it needs to to say what it does. The "Home media" section is also well sourced.

There is one broken link to Variety, in what is currently listed as the fifth reference.

Talk page
There is nothing recent on the talk page(last edit to the talk page was made by a bot in 2016), although there are several interesting discussions about the plot summary and copyright violation from the noughties.