User talk:Daneyer/sandbox

Feedback on Evaluation

Excellent work here, Danielle. You seem to have a solid grasp on what’s required to create a thorough, unbiased, informative article on a piece of original theatre.

I absolutely agree with your critique of the inclusion of comparisons to Othello. If this information comes from reviews or promotional materials, this should be referenced, otherwise it looks like original criticism, which is not what Wikipedia requires.

I also thought your suggestions for sections that would help to create a more informative and well-rounded account of the play were excellent, including the need for a production history, casts and creative team members, awards and nominations, and, importantly, a balanced and thorough reception section, which deals with both positive and negative reviews of the play from major media sources.

As you note in your section on neutrality, the page currently privileges positive reviews, when – a cursory glance at google tells me – this play has received at least some bad press from high profile sources.

Excellent work in noting the broken citiations and the unsuitability of The Public Theatre’s page as a source for some of the information.

EmerOToole (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Dani!

I want to start by saying that you did some really great work with your sourcing. They are all easily accessible and well referenced within your article contribution.

From those sources I found some cool other information that might do well to further explore the parallels between the two plays:

- Other interesting points mentioned in the Interview with Marine Carr was the statement by Frank McGuinness about the ‘fatal lack of self-knowledge’ versus Carr’s use of the ‘fatal excess of self-knowledge’. The mention of ‘wild-humour’ and themes of ‘underdeveloped comedy’ in tragedy would be an interesting thing to explore as well in that section.

- From your third source’s use of the term ‘jezebel witch’, it might also be interesting to explore the parallels of witchcraft and magic in regards to the two main characters. There’s an academic journal by Eric Byville called How to do witchcraft tragedy with speech acts that delves into the subject on Medea’s side that might be worth checking out. We have it at the Concordia Library.

These are some of the words that I think would be helpful to provide a link for to ensure that the reader can easily follow :

- Bog

- Displacement

- Disposition

Overall, I think it’s already in a great place in it’s sourcing and articulation of the subject matter. The variety of information reads, in my opinion, as unbiased and informative. Your explanations of the parallels are clear and concise. I understood the points being made, and the supporting arguments are well summarized. My only suggestions would be to consider a few more parallels and/or arguments against them, as well as being sure to link terms that might not be as easily understood by all audiences.

08:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)A ANGELU (talk)

Hi

I really appreciate the addition of a section on Medea. Moving forward, you might like to complement your newspaper review and interview sources with some scholarly sources. I particularly recommend The Theatre of Marina Carr: Before Rules Was Made by Cathy Leeny, available from the library. I can also lend it to you if the library copy is unavailable. EmerOToole (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi

You're doing really great work here. Well done on moving the Medea section to wikipedia.

On the Medea section, I feel like you could trim the first sentences, particularly making the following more concise "Medea is a sorceress and wife to the hero Jason, with whom she bears two children. When her husband proves unfaithful and leaves her for the Greek princess of Corinth, Glauce, she decides to punish Jason by killing his lover and their two children." e.g. "Medea is a sorceress and wife to the hero Jason. When her husband decides to marry another, she kills her own children in revenge." Or something! But just a little less detail, because the reader can click through to the Medea page if they want more.

Also, you repeat the word "consists" in this section, so find a different word the second time.

I like the final paragraph of the Medea section, but I wonder if it is too analytical and not factual enough for Wiki? I am going to ask to weigh in.

Where to next! I see you are developing some work on supernatural elements in your sandbox, which looks very promising.

I thought that a section on Themes might be a useful way to communicate some of the academic discourse to the Wikipedia readership. Then you could incorporate supernatural elements and witchcraft, but also perhaps start a section for Hester's status as a member of the travelling community, the theme of land ownership (very important in Irish literature), and other key themes.

Keep up the good work. And perhaps you might have time to come to my office next week to talk about what your finished article is going to look like?EmerOToole (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , : I think that the section you moved live looks good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi EmerOToole,
 * Thanks for the feedback! I'm actually developing a section on Themes as we speak. However, it is my opinion that supernatural elements should be its own section, and that witchcraft should be under that heading. For this play specifically, I don't really see witchcraft as a theme but more as an underlying presence and connection to the supernatural world, if that makes sense. I don't think it's ingrained in the plot enough to count as a theme. What do you think?
 * Daneyer (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm - I am going to withhold judgement until I see what the article looks like with the new sections on supernatural elements and themes. My worry is that in positioning supernatural elements as a consideration in itself as opposed to a theme amongst many, you might end up highlighting certain ways of interpreting the play to the detriment of others and this might contravene wikipedia's dedication to neutrality. However, I will wait to see how you balance these new sections! Tag me when you've made new additions and I'll offer more feedback then. I also want to say: you are nearly there with this assignment. When the new material is up, you'll just need to refine and shape and that's it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmerOToole (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dani,

The material you've moved to Wikipedia looks good.EmerOToole (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi EmerOToole,


 * I have completed the final portion of the assignment. You can find it in my sandbox from "Wiki assignment final" all the way until it says [End of assignment]. It includes all my contributions to the article. I got rid of the Witchcraft subheading under Supernatural elements to incorporate it under that main heading. I also added some more themes. If you have time, please let me know if you think I should incorporate Supernatural elements under Themes as well! I'd also appreciate it if you could let me know if you think I should move the entirety of my work to the article. Thank you!


 * Daneyer (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Daneyer

Hi -

The below feedback is a little blunt, because I am in a hurry to get remarks to everyone! There's lots of great work here, but I am going to point almost exclusively to stuff that needs development - please understand this as a vote of confidence in your ability to respond to feedback!

1. The Medea section is great

2. Throughout this new material, you need to pay more attention to where you are placing your references.

3. The new material is FAR too close to Kader. Hers is just one perspective on these themes. It is overprivileged here.

3. Land ownership - this is a section where further clarity with references is needed, as it is not clear what you are drawing from the source and what you are drawing from the text. I would not make the claim that the ownership of the bog is the main conflict, as this is not a fact but an interpretation. I would scratch the material from Kader on the dispute being reminiscent of the dispute between the Irish and the British over land, or greatly reduce it. So that this section is balanced as opposed to representing just one scholar's argument, I would incorporate some material on land in the play from the collection How Rules Was Made or from Melissa Sihra's excellent work on Carr.

4. Displacement - this material is too thematically close to land ownership to warrant its own section. You should use the term "Irish Travellers" instead of "Tinkers" as the latter is offensive to contemporary members of the traveling community. Hester's status as a Traveller could be added to the section on Land Ownership, and a reference added from Sihra or Leeny on the significance of her ethnic status (The Travelling community are often used in Irish fiction to disrupt traditional cultural associations with landowning.)

5. Feminism - again, clearer use of references needed. Who are these "some writers"? I would chop the material on throwing herself at Carthage.

6. It's my honest opinion, having seen this develop, that "Supernatural elements" sits strangely as its own section. I would create a theme section entitled "The Supernatural" and use the supernatural material there.

7. Supernatural elements - I don't think Josie "cursed" Hester to live as long as the Swan - conventionally, this is tragic prophesy. Josie calls her mother a "Jezebel Witch" while pretending to be her wicked Granny. I would cut this sentence, as it is a little misleading. I think casting the Catwoman as a witch is reductive, but like the material on herbs.

Okay! Plenty to work with. Please tag me when you've made your edits. EmerOToole (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)