User talk:RachLit/sandbox

Hi Rachel!

I see that you have the House of Fame article in your sandbox, but I am having a hard time finding your additions/changes. Let me know what things I should focus on! Farrar80 (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Danielle! Sorry about that. I added to the beginning of the synopsis, and I added some sentences and citations to the introductory and overview sections on the main page, so it looks the same in my sandbox. Some of these are edits from the last two weeks that I did directly on the article. RachLit (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

EJ and Danielle, As I mentioned above, most of my work is polishing what was already there and filling in gaps. One of my major concerns is adding citations to this person's work, which has been flagged by the community. I could use some advice on backtracking. I also want to add more to the synopsis. I added basic descriptions of the beginning of the poem, in the style of the previous author, but should I add more detail to both of our descriptions? Would this delve too far into the realm of interpretation? Thanks! RachLit (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When looking at the opening (really short) discussion of The House of Fame, as well as the sections Overview and Synopsis, I think you are right to want to do more in terms of adding basic descriptions. Another thing is that the information that appears in these three sections are not necessarily relevant to their respective sections. I'm not sure the info under Overview is overview so much as synopsis and vice versa. Overview is a really general section header, so I think your instinct to label it something different, such as Critical Reception or Criticism might make more sense. Farrar80 (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Rachel,

There is a copy of The Riverside Chaucer in the “fishtank” just outside of the 3rd floor elevators of Cooper. Check the notes, because there is some contentiousness on just how influential Boccaccio was, and more emphasis is placed on the French poets, Machaut and Froissart.

Also, you will find ample citations in the last paragraph in column 2, on page 977 for Boethius and rejection of earthly mutability. And the top of page 978 gives a little more contextual evidence for when the poem may have been composed.

You may want to point out that the authenticity of HoF is not found in the manuscript, but is confirmed by his reference to this work in the Prologue to Legend of Good Women (F 417).

Now, in what follows, I have a few suggestions that I'll take in order as they appear in the article as it stands now:

I think you and Danielle had discussed shifting the "Synopsis" to come before the "Overview." I think that this move makes perfect sense, and if you do this, you might want to delete the first paragraph in the "Overview," except for the first sentence. The rest of the paragraph is a little confusing, and some of the details seem to come through more clearly in the "Synopsis."

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, might it be more precise to replace "personalities" with "personas" or "figures?"

In the first paragraph of the synopsis: I can’t remember, but does the poet explicitly identify himself as Chaucer? Or does he merely hint at it by referencing some of his own texts? I know that Chaucer's own name comes up in one of his poems, and if it's this one, might that line be worth citing since there is so much criticism regarding the Chaucerian narrator?

I hope that this is helpful. You chose an ambitious and fun project, and I look forward to seeing your contributions. Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of assistance in any way.

Cheers, Elanjust (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)