User talk:MarikoRooks/sandbox

Article Evaluation

I suspect you know you have to get going on thisRJBazell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a good start! I like how your lead section is very clear and follows the lead section structure needed for a play. The structure for the body of the article looks good, it will be a really complete draft once the summaries for the parts of the play are added in.-JJJ156 (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your structure is good to make sure everything is understood! Maybe you could try adding a bit on the historical context in which this play was written in a different section. That way you could make some kind of connect without explicitly assuming anything? Just an idea! Overall it looks like you have a good start! Lk031 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
It looks like you've got a really strong working outline at this point! I think the structure of the article, as you have it laid out so far, is really clear and logically progressing, and all of the sections you've chosen to add are relevant. The only things I can think of to suggest at this point is maybe the addition of a section specifically addressing the historical significance of the play and/or its relationship to other plays about HIV/AIDS at the time (e.g. The Normal Heart), although this might be a difficult section to write for Wikipedia specifically because it requires making some conclusion/judgement call -- I'm struggling with that for my article, as well. I also think it might be interesting to add a section that chronicles the various revivals of the play around the world / how it has been interpreted by different theaters, if that's information you think wouldn't be too difficult to find. As of now, it looks like you have a solid baseline for writing the article -- the only things I'd suggest thinking about in writing it is 1) how to find a "consensus" in the critical reception section (i.e., how to write that section in an unbiased way, which I can foresee being particularly difficult for that one section) and 2) how in depth you want to explain the plot without bogging down the whole article with unnecessary detail and detracting from its historical/social significance. The latter of these, specifically, is something I probably haven't been paying enough attention to in writing my own article, but reviewing yours has helped me take a step back and think about it in a larger perspective. Alinett (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)