User:MatthewLangsdale/sandbox

Evaluation of Article for "The Raven"
The Wikipedia article for Edgar Allan Poe's poem "The Raven" is an excellent example of the type of article that we seek to write. First and foremost, the fact that it is a 'featured article' tells us that it has been reviewed by many editors and it is widely agreed upon that it stands as one of the best articles in Wikipedia. Second, the introduction provides a clear background for the poem, providing the name of the author, the year it was published, a short summary, and an overview of the topics that would be covered with regard to the poem in the article. Thirdly, there is at least one citation per paragraph, but generally there is one after each sentence, showing that every bit of information is accounted for. The overall structure of the article also contributes to its credibility, as there is an introduction, synopsis, analysis, publication history, composition, and critical reception. Furthermore, the analysis portion itself, while analysis is often subjective, the article avoids opinionated statements, using only information that is directly provided by Poe in the poem or in other works he created to explain the poem. Information that had not been confirmed by Poe himself, such as the possibility that he was inspired by Odin's ravens in Norse mythology. This portion is cited, showing that the Norse did, in fact, believe that Odin had two ravens, but there is nothing beyond this to try and argue whether or not Poe did have them in mind while writing his poem. Beyond this, there are many references compiled at the bottom of the article which suggests that the article has drawn on many sources. Finally, the Talk section of this article is very lengthy with a great amount of positive correspondence between Wikipedians who have edited the article, suggesting an open space for communication and debate.

My Part in the Implementation Plan
All my final contributions are in Ivy Zhang's sandbox: User:Ivyeon/sandbox

I added the paraphrase of Taylor's Introduction to the play in the "Chess Allegory Section" and added approximately 5 sentences (in addition to improving on what already existed) to the paraphrase of the Cogswell article. I also peer-reviewed both the Bicks portion of the article in the "Anti-Catholic" section and the Wittek portion of the "Influence on Public" section.

Here are all the summary bullet points I created for the project:

For the Gary Taylor Introduction:


 * Play had 9-day run
 * Nearly 1/7 of London saw it
 * “In a letter dated 25 May 1625, Mead wrote that ‘The play called the game at chess is in print, but because I have no skill in the game I understand it not.’”(1826)
 * “The difference between early readers and early spectators results, instead, from the difference in what was visible to each. A spectator at the play simply saw a series of recognizable historical figures (the Spanish Ambassador Gondomar, the Archbishop of Spalato, King James, Prince Henry, the Duke of Buckingham, King Felipe) and saw individuals who belonged to recognizable social categories (a Jesuit priest, a lay Jesuitess, an English Protestant minister)”(1826)
 * Many original readers of the play critiqued it for being confusing, possibly due to the difficulty of keeping track of each character based on their names. (i.e. white queen’s pawn instead of ‘Isabella’)
 * Many aspects to the chess metaphor: racial politics, the white queen’s pawn as the heroine, the possible interpretation of a chess game, its interpretation as a broad reflection of reality (corruption in the church etc.), its interpretation as a direct critique of contemporary issues (each character representing a real person, i.e. the black king representing the King of Spain at the time). (1826-1827)
 * Taylor argues that the chess allegory sets up for a play that critiques strict distinctions between classes and people by mixing real-world actions- such as rape and betrayal- and other real-world elements into the narrative which are not applicable to a real game of chess. The fact that the white queen’s pawn, for example, could be mistaken for the black queen’s pawn reveals that the characters are not actually white and black, but distinguished only on their allegiance. (1827)
 * Relates it to Protestant Reformation: Luther argued that sin was “inevitable and damnable”, which went against Catholic belief in redemption by following strict moral codes. The play signifies this by defying strict distinctions between people and showing how they are impossible to maintain.
 * “A Game at Chess depends upon what it rejects: chess, obedience, confession, dissembling, totalizing power, sexual mismatching.”(1829)
 * This is all I found useful- I did not write anything from pages 1828 or 1829 so you should look at those and make sure I didn’t miss anything there!
 * Paraphrase:
 * Taylor introduces the text of A Game At Chess by contextualizing the piece both through its initial reception and the religious reformation occurring at the time. He explains how the chess metaphor emphasizes the flaws in racialization through the chess allegory by pointing out how, unlike the chess pieces themselves, the actual characters in the play were not distinguished on their color. Perhaps what is most telling of the narrative’s goals is his assertion that “A Game at Chess depends upon what it rejects: chess, obedience, confession, dissembling, totalizing power, sexual mismatching”(1829). His argument is therefore that the play was meant as a pointed critique of Catholic ideals and its authoritative control over its subjects’ lives.

For the Cogswell article:


 * Cogswell continuously refers to and critiques a Heinemann essay for its lack of information regarding the political context of the play.
 * Heinemann’s article declares that much support came from the play’s satire of certain contemporary figures (namely the Duke of Buckingham, as supported by the Earl of Pembroke), but Cogswell points out that each instance that was referred to was merely efforts by those characters to deceive their enemy(277). This argument is also problematic in that the play would not have had the backing of the British Court if it made fun of their most powerful figures.
 * He elaborates that the public actually favored most leaders that are caricatured in the play at the time of its production, and therefore the public’s reception of the play would have been good and the play could have the favor of the British Court.
 * The play could not have been put into production without the allowance of the King, Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Pembroke, and Master of Revels. Cogswell states that one of his sources (provided under the number 33 in the text) states that they’d even seen the play before its production, so the Court supported its run initially.
 * When the play was suppressed, it was done so without much penalty for Middleton or The King’s Men. Pretty much just given a “slap on the wrist”. He does not explain why England then sought to suppress its production.
 * He further finds that the entire play might be a justification of Charles and Buckingham’s journey to Spain, thereby granting them more approval from the people of England. The play therefore acted as propaganda supporting the Duke of Buckingham, Prince Charles, and the Earl of Pembroke in their efforts with Spain, so they protected it.

Also created the majority of the Cogswell paraphrase.