User talk:Ee1013

Welcome!
Hello, Ee1013, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Article review! (take 2)
Hi Emily!

This is my second attempt at trying to review Stage Combat -- the first go-around got eaten alive by Wikipedia, so hopefully this one survives!

I'm basing this review primarily on the five things that Wikipedia indicates make up a good article:

A lead section that is easy to understand: This is good and clear! I appreciate that there copious links to articles of interest, too. A clear structure: I think the structure is easy to foAllow, and generally makes sense. One thing I did notice has to do with the section relating to 'types of choreographed fights'. It occurs to me that this section could possible be integrated into the history of stage combat, especially since the title doesn't quite portray what the section is saying: its more instances of fights, rather than type, at least to my eyes! Just a thought. Balanced coverage: I feel like article is generally balanced--one thing that I did notice is in the opening section there's the mention that often times fight choreographers have a background in dance and martial arts--that's so cool! I'd love it if there was a little section somewhere talking about some of those folks, perhaps in recent years, who are prominent in the field. Neutral content: It feels neutral to me! Reliable sources: I think the further reading section is splendid, and has lots of good, reliable looking references. However, the 'references' section seems a little sparse to me, in comparison. Perhaps there are more sources that are listed in the 'further reading' section that could be listed there, too?

You're a rock star!

Tobymsinger (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hey! Really good article so far. I really enjoyed how the History section was split into different time periods. It made it easier to read and it was less daunting than if it had all been together. Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. There wasn't anything that seemed like it didn't fit. In the Ancient History section the last sentence starts with "As it doesn't make sense to sacrifice citizens in rituals..." The beginning, "As it makes sense" seems a little personal to me, so I would take that part out. And just make sure there's no generalizing or assuming phrases in the history sections. Other than that, the article feels neutral. The sources are good as well, and they all seem reliable. And I can't think of anything that should be added. In all, good article!

Asbenn (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Asbenn

Dream Ballet Review
Hey Emily.

Okay, I looked at the stages of the article, and from where it was, this article is in really good shape. The visual content definitely helps make the article seem more defined. I wonder if there are even more visuals you can find to make the article clearer for the reader, that might be helpful. Examples of dream ballet in other musicals would help as well, maybe a list would be good? Just so readers have an idea of what exactly a dream ballet is and how they've probably seen it before. I'm sure you have sources you're waiting to add, so after adding some sources and (hopefully) more visuals, the article will really shine!

Overall, great job so far!

Asbenn (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)Asbenn