Wikipedia:Peer review/Adrienne Lecouvreur/archive1

Adrienne Lecouvreur
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I have added some sections and edited information on this article, and would like to invite anyone who is familiar with Mademoiselle Lecouvreur to collaborate or make suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, CataVillamarin111 (talk) 00:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review
LEAD: I think this is a great summary, and introduced me to her in a nice, general way. You have a little type -- I think you mean "scholars have." I really like that you've talked about her whole life here, not just her acting career. That really helps to paint a fuller picture of her personal history. When you say "her story," do you mean her life story?

STRUCTURE: I think you have a great structure. I like that you took the time to talk about her legacy. I might suggest renaming Early Years to "History" and then having subheaders like Early Years, Later Years, etc (or whatever is appropriate). That may help the reader follow along a bit better.

INTERNAL LINKS: You did a great job linking to other Wiki articles throughout the text, when applicable/appropriate. I couldn't think of any See Also pages to add, so for now I think you're probably fine without a See Also section.

EXTERNAL LINKS: Likewise, I drew a blank for any External Links I would have liked to have. Unless you come across something directly relevant, you're probably ok not to have this section either. The article is not lacking, for not having one.

IMAGES: These are wonderful! There are some beautiful images you were able to use. Great job.

HISTORY/HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I love the information about her early years! Here are a few questions I had when reading: At what age did she move to Paris with her family? I was a little unclear on the second theater troupe in the sentence beginning "Young Adrienne found" ...what troupe are you referring to? I'd also love to know how old she was when she played the role of Pauline -- you may want to make it more clear that this is her stage debut, yes? Finally, I would want to make it clear that Philippe Le Roy is Elisabeth's father, not Adrienne's. The information is all here, just little clarity things! Really great job.

COMPREHENSIVENESS OF INFO: I really love the Acting Style section. I think it's wonderful to have this whole section devoted to something she was known for. I also like the Legacy section quite a bit, because it rounds out the article. I would love to see a section devoted exclusively to the talk of her mysterious death, since it seems to be a huge part of her history, and it's something you mention in the lead section.

ACCURACY OF INFO/CITATIONS: You have a number of wonderful citations! I can't wait to see what you add with that new book you just got. I'm really impressed by how thorough these citations are; great job.

CLARITY OF INFO: In the lead, I would change the first sentence to read "considered by many critics" or something that's more neutral/less general. My only other thought would be starting the first sentence in Early Years with "Adrienne Lecouvreur was born Adrienne Couvreur on..." In general, I think you refer to an individual by their last name for the duration of an article, after having mentioned their first name in the lead. So you'd just write Lecouvreur was... for the rest of it. (But you may want to double-check me on that!)

OTHER: Love it! I can't wait to see what else you come up with. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A great start on this article so far, Catalina! Here is my peer review for our class assignment; hope it is helpful!
 * Comments from Kfurano1129


 * Structure, format and appearance
 * Lead section - this article's lead section provides an excellent overview of the subject, without going into excessive detail and while keeping the majority of content within the body of the article. The lead section also uses in-text links very well. My only suggestion here would be to clean up the sentence structure a bit; I think the information could be expressed in a more succinct and clear manner.
 * Body - the article contains a logical series of section that help organize the context of the article. I have not seen your writing plan, but I think the article might be improved the addition of sections dedicated to her career in at its peak; on the circumstances surrounding her death; and on her personal life (since you mentioned both in the lead section). Of course, this is all dependent on your access to research material on these topics.
 * In-text links and "See Also" section - this article makes excellent use of relevant in-text links throughout, helping increase the a user's understanding of the article. I would suggest the addition of a "See Also" section to strengthen the article, linking to relevant Wikipedia articles not currently covered by the in-text links.
 * External links section - this article currently lacks an "External Links" section, which would strengthen the overall comprehensiveness of the article's contents.
 * Images - the article contains three relevant images of Mlle. Lecouvreur that all adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. My only suggestion would be to revisit the caption on the third image; it is a little unclear.


 * Content and sources
 * Information - this article's content provides a strong overview of the topic, providing both historical context and a largely complete overview of Mlle. Lecouvreur's life. My only suggestions to expand the article's content can be found in the "Body" section above (again, should relevant research be available). The article is also well-sourced and cited, containing references to strong secondary and tertiary sources, including scholarly journals. As with the lead section, I think the language could be a little more succinct throughout.
 * Sources - I would suggest taking another look at the Wikipedia reference standards handout; the citations could be cleaned up a bit. As per Tim riley and Ssilver's comments to me last semester, it seems to be Wiki best practice to separate journal and news sources into the "References" section that will then refer, when necessary to a "Sources" section that lists all book sources. Also, there are several sources you have listed twice, rather than having separate citations refer to the same reference/source. I'd be happy to show you how to fix this!

Keep up the great work! Kfurano1129 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)