User:Otter.gracie/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Repertory theatre

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Personally, I have a passion for Repertory Theatre. We don't see enough of it in the United States, and I am an American actor who wants to be doing repertory theatre. This is my entry point. I evaluated a few different C-class level articles, and this one seemed like it needed quite a bit of work. Repertory theatre can be a confusing concept, and it deserves a Wikipedia page that will easily and completely convey the information.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section

The article has a good lead sentence; it is brief, but it clearly describes the topic. It does not- however- have sentences summarizing the article's sections. Also, Repertory theatre and repertory are two different things, or they are different enough that they may warrant two different Wikipedia articles. The line about "weekly rep" is unnecessary.

Content

The section about the resident company does not seem accurate to contemporary theatre. It feels a bit dated. I am less familiar with repertory opera, but I don't know a single repertory theatre company that casts the way the article describes.

The section on the rehearsal schedule may be unnecessary.

The section about repertory theatre could be renamed and focus more on major repertory theatres in each county mentioned. The US section never mentions some of the most well known repertory theatres like the Oregon Shakespeare Festival.

The Pros and Cons section should be removed.

I don't think this article fills the equity gap.

Tone and Balance

The majority of it feels pretty neutral. I would say the pro and con section is unnecessary, as it does express opinions. It tries to be neutral, but I think it can be done in a more effective way. I think it is positive article to repertory theatre. Perhaps it could include more information on why so many companies go out of business.

Sources and ReferencesCitations need a lot of work here. The Pro and Con section is wholly uncited. Most of the article is uncited. The few sources that we do have are more recently published. The links I tried work. I don't see many historically marginalized authors.

Organization and Writing Quality

The writing of this article could be improved. It feels amateur. The sections could have been chosen more carefully. Some of them feel like filler.

Images and Media

This article contains no images nor media.

Talk Page DiscussionEveryone agrees that this page is a mess. The most recent volunteer gave some suggestions for directions that this article needs to go in, but they did not have enough knowledge of the topic. This article is rated C-class of Top Importance. I have talked about repertory theatre in my Theatre History classes, and they don't seem to agree- as one volunteer stated- many companies claim to be repertory theatres that aren't.

Overall Impression

This article is rated C-class of Top Importance. There is a lot going on here; it seems like a lot of people have tried to clean it up. Time has been spent. It is readable. It seems like it was more of a mess in the past. It really needs work, though. I would rework the sections and expand the ones that should remain (I spoke about this earlier).

I would say it is underdeveloped. It feels like there is a lot of filler. It has potential!


 * Nice job on this! I could even see this as the article you decide to edit. You have noticed some real issues with the page and have some strong ideas on how you'd like to change it. Pareichert (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)