User talk:Emmampeake/sandbox

Quick comments from outside of your group
I got fidgety about not working on the project tonight, so I hope you don’t mind me coming to read over what you’ve done! Since I have only the most baseline idea of what your group set out to do from the group plan, I apologize if anything I say has been already discussed and thrown out by your group: freely disregard anything. First off, I’m stunned by the quantity and quality of the information you have compiled. Your planned edits are both incredibly thorough and very detailed! It was honestly a super interesting read, and it’s what I would want from any wiki page I visited. I know your group is like stupid big and it’s hard to iron everything out between that many people, so I give this with a grain of salt since it might not be realistic (or within your scope) to make these changes. From looking at pages like the Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet one, criticism sections seem to be written to minimize quotes or reference to scholars, the exception being scholars who have their own Wikipedia page. Honestly there were only a couple instances in your page where I could even find anything to nitpick about that! You did really well. There may be one or two scholars mentioned that aren’t hyperlinked; for example, in the Gender and Sexuality section it seems like (if I found the right person) Adelman has a wiki page that could be hyperlinked, but Tracey Miller-Tomlison mentioned right afterwards doesn’t. In the same sentence you might wanna put the Cym citations (kudos for standardizing those!) right after their respective quotes, but again I’m totally counting pennies right now. Other pages go back and forth on whether it's directly after or not, and I don't know if it should be different based on the fact that there are two different lines quoted in the same sentence. Exhibit A of maybe not being your scope is that some of the citations (the full ones in the references) are a little odd and I can’t tell if it’s a quirk of wikipedia’s citing function, caused from copying stuff over from other sandboxes, because of different page numbers, or what. Some citations might need to be added for the British identity section? But I’m not sure the process you went through to write it. The Cymbeline intro might be one that you are able to keep cohesive between every mention. Some, like Ann Thompson’s work, seems to be listed in the references three different times with the same citation? Man, I don’t know how Wikipedia works, and dealing with that is not exactly your first priority. Thanks for your time! -SMambs (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)