User:Sctbr/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

I have followed the guidelines for evaluating a Wikipedia article provided in the "Find Potential Articles" module in my selection of articles. The questions are taken directly from that lesson.

Option 1

 * Article title: English Renaissance Theater
 * My reasons for potentially selecting this article are as follows. This article is rated both C-Class and of high importance to the Shakespeare and Theater Wikipedia projects. It may therefore be worth editing.


 * Article Evaluation
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * The sentence "so an audience viewing a play may often have to ignore the fact that there is a noble man sitting right on the stage" implies value judgement. What is more, this is a value judgement which I believe to be factually inconsistent with the time period given that the point was to also look at the noble man. The article should also note that this was more of a practice at Blackfriars than The Globe, the latter of which is the only theater cited for this practice by the article.
 * The sentence "the workload on the actors, especially the leading performers like Richard Burbage or Edward Alleyn, must have been tremendous" is not really neutral in tone.
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * I think there is a missing citation for information surrounding the performance of Gorboduc, although it is not marked as citation needed.
 * There is a citation needed marked on the following sentence: "audiences of the 1630s benefited from a half-century of vigorous dramaturgical development; the plays of Marlowe and Shakespeare and their contemporaries were still being performed on a regular basis, mostly at the public theatres, while the newest works of the newest playwrights were abundant as well, mainly at the private theatres." Given my general knowledge of the subject area, this doesn't seem quite right. It definitely needs a citation. I could look for one.
 * I think there should be a citation on the claim that people chose seats based on the view of the stage. I've read almost exclusively that it was more important what the audiences' view of you was, as evidenced by the way pricing for different seats was set. If what the article says is true, they need to substantiate it.
 * Something needs a lot of fixing with the citation at the end of the "Audience" section.
 * The sentence "the workload on the actors, especially the leading performers like Richard Burbage or Edward Alleyn, must have been tremendous" is interpretive. It requires a citation.
 * "Costumes themselves were expensive, so usually players wore contemporary clothing regardless of the time period of the play" is dubious information, although the ending fact is right. Citation needed.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * While Andrew Gurr is certainly a relatively recent and very respectable source for the information on the evolution of early modern from the Elizabethan to the Caroline, I think there is significantly more scholarly debate on the topic than is represented by the article. Gurr should not be cited as stating a fact here, but as making an argument, I would argue. Masques should also perhaps be mentioned in this section, although I would have to read Gurr to see if he mentions them or if it necessary to cite another scholar complementary to Gurr's argument.
 * There's a dubious chunk of information on early modern acting in the performances section which is cited only to an MA thesis from the 70s. That could certainly be fact checked and cited to a more reputable source.
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * No
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * The talk page is relatively quiet. There was some recent discussion of the deletion of an image without proper citation which was dismissed when proper citations were given.
 * General comments
 * I am puzzled by the lack of the phrase "thrust stage" in the description of the early modern stage. Surely correct terminology would make things easier to understand as there is already a different Wikipedia article on thrust stages which can be linked to.
 * More mention could be made of the parts of the theater, like the gates of hell and the heavens, but that may be less supported for theaters other than The Globe.
 * The "Performances" section is stylistically messy. It repeats itself on the boy players point within the section, and the repertoire repetition point from the previous section.
 * A great deal is made of doubling roles throughout the article. Was it really that important?
 * The section on costuming could do with a citation to Howard's article on cross dressing, specifically social-class cross dressing, which would allow it to be linked to other important ideas in the theater.
 * The article makes no mention of cue scripts or rehearsal practices, although there are clear spots where it could. This is somewhat newer research which should be included for a full understanding of the functioning of early modern drama. My main contribution might be changing this.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title: As You Like It
 * My reasons for potentially selecting this article are as follows. This article is rated C-Class, and of high importance to the Shakespeare Wikipedia project, and may therefore be worth editing. I have also taught a class on As You Like It before, and am including it my honors thesis, so I am relatively familiar with the text and surrounding criticism.


 * Article Evaluation:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes generally
 * Is it written neutrally?
 * Yes
 * Does each claim have a citation?
 * Citations needed to scholarship and the play itself in the section which discusses Rosalind's gender identity, for example.
 * Are the citations reliable?
 * Yes, and the scholarship that is cited is generally up to date
 * Does the article tackle one of Wikipedia's equity gaps (coverage of historically underrepresented or misrepresented populations or subjects)?
 * Somewhat, in regards to improving this article's engagement with LGBTQ+ issues.
 * Check out the article's Talk page to see what other Wikipedians are already contributing. Consider posting some of your ideas to the article's Talk page, too.
 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title: Catholic education
 * My reasons for potentially selecting this article are as follows. I am Catholic and, if I get a teaching degree, I am at least somewhat likely to end up teaching at a Catholic school. I am therefore interested in researching the subject, even though I do not know much about it at present. It is also associated with education, which could be good for this class.


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is categorized as a stub. There are extensive Wikipedia articles on sub-issues in Catholic education (like the History of Catholic education in the United States) which should be redirected to. Currently the questions for article evaluation do not apply because the article is essentially a list of things which count as part of Catholic education. Perhaps these items could become section headers.


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources