User talk:SMambs/sandbox

Peer Review
Sam B's suggestion:

I would change the sentence "These share similar characters, wager terms, and hiding in a chest in order to gather proof in Imogen’s room" to something like "These share similar characters and wager terms, and both stories feature somebody hiding within Innogen's bedchamber to gain false proof of being there." Something like this flows a little better, i think.

ENGL304 Peer Review
Hello, SMambs. Here are my thoughts on what you have posted for your Cymbeline edits thus far.

I believe that the content you have edited is good. I especially like how you are able to elaborate on how exactly Cymbeline has changed from the stories it is based on, and this new content can almost stand on its own. However, I believe it would be best if you could explain in detail how the sub-plots in Cymbeline are derived from The Decameron or possibly find other works that inspired the sub-plots in the play.

There is not much to say about the structure, balance, or neutrality of the document right now other than they are all sufficient. The additional content you added logically comes after the sentence explaining how the play was influence by other works, none of the added content is overrepresented or tries to create its own argument, and there are no biases present in any of the added content. Try your best to maintain this as you add more content!

I also approve the citations in the article so far. The content that has been added is thoroughly cited and the sources themselves appear to be primary sources. However, I cannot help but think that there may have been a mistake when the content was being cited because sources that seemingly do not contribute to each of the sentences are being cited. Try going over your sources again and determine if you absolutely need to cite them.

In general, it appears that you are doing a good job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregdu (talk • contribs) 01:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review - Ali B.
I think you added some great content to this section of the article and it sounds like you put in a lot of work, going back to and even transcribing the primary sources to get a fuller understanding of how Shakespeare adapted them. It looks like the sentence "Shakespeare, however, freely adapts the legend and adds entirely original sub-plots" already existed in the article and I'm not sure if its working. I would either try to find a way to cite this claim, soften the language by taking out "freely" and "entirely," or just delete the sentence all together. Aside from that, I think your edits are really good. Everything seems to be well cited and the only other suggestion I have is maybe to explain the calumny plot or the plots of The Decameron and Frederyke of Jennen a bit more. AliENGL304 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Thank you for looking it over! We fully agree about that specific sentence and it's been the topic of much conversation. I asked about it on the Cym talk page, but I doubt an answer will come with any rapidity so we have decided to get rid of that sentence completely. Because, as you noted, it's not cited, very vague for such an extreme claim, and it is expanded upon exactly None. In its place we plan to have the sentence "Shakespeare based the setting of the play and the character Cymbeline on what he found in Holinshed's chronicles, but the plot and sub-plots of the play are derived from a series of other sources." which we hope is a stronger and more defended statement! I wish I could have talked more about Decameron or Frederyke, but I was afraid of taking up a bit too much space on a page about Cymbeline. Their plots follow Cymbeline's wager sub-plot with extreme closeness, so I tried to summarize everything Shakespeare takes from them as concisely as I could. Do you recommend expanding upon the details? -SMambs (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)