Wikipedia:Peer review/Choregos/archive1

Choregos
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am currently working on it as part of a graduate course in Theatre History at Brooklyn College. I would value input on both the content of the article, including any information that appears inaccurate, irrelevant or that veers toward opinion rather than fact, as well as feedback on the overall structure of the article. I would also like feedback on any deviation from Wikipedia style guidelines, particularly in the case of the reference list. I will be working on this article through early December, so any comments or suggested would not only be greatly appreciated, but also very helpful toward earning a high mark on my assignment

Thanks for your help and insight!, Kfurano1129 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
You have mightily improved this article, and I hope my few comments, above, are of some help in further improving it. Meanwhile I congratulate you on a most interesting and readable piece of work. Did you know, by the way, that Alexis wrote a play about a female choragus, called "χορηγίς"? – Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * I was surprised at the spelling choregos. According to Liddell and Scott (p. 1668) the Attic and Doric form was "χορᾱγός", rather than the more usual "χορηγός". As the thrust of the article is about the Athenian functionary you need to include this, I think. It might be better as an explanatory footnote rather than in the main text.
 * Anglicised forms – the Oxford English Dictionary gives the main entry as choragus, with the alternative choregus; Chambers does likewise; Collins gives only "choregus". The prevalence of "choragus" is probably because that is the classical Latin form of the word. At all events, you need to mention these two spelling variants.
 * It is also worth giving the English plurals: the OED allows choragi and choregi. For my own part, I'd rename the article and use the English forms throughout. Using the original Greek form of the word in an English article is like referring to Louis XIV as Roi of France or Tarquinius as Rex of Rome; others may disagree with me. (I notice that a JSTOR search gives 333 hits for "Choragus", 311 for "Choregos", and 191 for "Choregus", showing that there is no scholarly consensus on this point.)
 * WP:OVERLINK – I doubt if anyone who reads this article will require any enlightenment as to the import of the words "dramatic" and "playwright". As the Manual of Style rightly says, "Ask yourself, 'How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?'"
 * Duties of the Chorêgoi
 * Sentence case for headers, please, – lower case for "choregoi"
 * How is it that "choregoi" in the lead has become "chorêgoi" here? The circumflex is unnecessary in an English encyclopaedia article, me judice. Be consistent, at all events. The circumflex comes and goes at present.
 * Notable Chorêgoi
 * Titles of plays – some are italicised (Phoenicians) and others are not (The Persians, and Prometheus Bound in the next section.) Consistency, please.
 * Philanthropic context
 * "Though some scholars theorize…" – there are sixty-five words in this sentence. I'd chop it in two, breaking after "impulse" and tweaking the prose accordingly.
 * "subsidization of" – rather a long-winded way of saying "subsidy of"
 * "Aeschylus's" – you've already given him a blue link two paragraphs earlier; no need for another here.
 * "It should be noted, however, that" – see WP:EDITORIAL and blitz forthwith.
 * "liturgical" – I was taken aback by this use of the word, which I think of only in a Christian context. Still, if you're sure it's what you mean, then fine. I just mention it. Please ignore that: I was forgetting classical Greek usage, where "liturgy" has its own recognised meaning. Tim riley (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Ssilvers

 * OK, the article seems pretty clear now that it's all about Athens.
 * Tim's comments above are excellent. Please do pursue his suggestion about looking into Alexis's play Choregi, a comedy about a woman choregos.  If you have any questions about how to execute any of Tim's comments, I can help you.  I agree that the article should move to either "Choregus" or "Choragus", but I think a more experienced Wikipedian should make the move, as it is rather a technical matter.  In any case, we should state the alternate spellings in the WP:LEAD section.  Do your sources indicate that the scholars use a preferred spelling in English? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you need to indicate that the choregos did not direct the play - in Greek theatre, I believe that the playwright directed his own plays. If your sources agree with this, would you kindly note it? Done.
 * Here is more information that might go in the Choregos article (prepared offline by Tim riley):
 * Originally the choregos acted on behalf of his tribe, which collectively won the kudos of a successful performance. Gradually the sponsoring choregoi asserted more personal responsibility, and by the fourth century BC the prize for the choregos was a personal award. The winner was expected to display his trophy in a place of honour [cf. the Lysikrates monument mentioned in the article]. Also, the choregos would normally appoint someone (often the playwright) as Χοροδιδάσκαλος (chorodidaskalos), often shortened to διδάσκαλος, to train the chorus. ref Buck, Carl D. "Discoveries in the Attic Deme of Ikaria 1888. III. The Choregia in Athens and at Ikaria. Inscriptions from Ikaria Nos. 5-7", The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts, Vol. 5, No. 1 (March 1889), pp. 18–33 ref Done.
 * Quote: "The sums spent on choregiai show that the duty could elicit vast expenditure. One extremely enthusiastic choregos catalogues a list which represents an outlay of nearly two and a half talents. This includes a dithyrambic choregia at the Little Panathenaea for 300 drachmae, and a tragic choregia for 3,000 dr. The latter figure is roughly ten times what a skilled worker might have earned annually." "chorēgia", Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World
 * The reorganisation of the choregia in 406 BC spread the cost among the wider community – the synchoregia – with the choregos paying only part of the expense. See Capps, Edward. "The Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens", The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 17, No. 3 (1896), pp. 319–328 Done.
 * At the turn of the 17th century AD, when the first operas were being written in an attempt to recreate the old Greek dramatic tradition, the position of choregos was revived for a time. It was known in Italian as "corago", and combined the roles of impresario and director. The title fell into disuse. See Savage, Roger and Matteo Sansone. "Il Corago and the Staging of Early Opera: Four Chapters from an Anonymous Treatise circa 1630", Early Music, Vol. 17, No. 4, The Baroque Stage I (November 1989), pp. 494–511 Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I moved the substantial, referenced information out of the Lead and into the body of the article, leaving summary information in the Lead, and I also added summary/overview information to the Lead to introduce the more complete material in the body of the article, all per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD

Comments from Ashleybirdsell
1. LEAD: I like that you included the etymology of the word; I think it’s important to the definition and understanding of choregos. I’m not sure how I feel about the sentence explaining the modern rendering of the term for “grantor,” it felt a bit out of place. Perhaps it could be included in the “philanthropic context” section, maybe as the choregos relates to similar administrative roles today? (Or, it could go in the note at the bottom of the article.)

2. BODY: I think the text is very thorough and answered the questions I had about choregos. I’m not sure if an explanation about the playwright is necessary on a page detailing with the choregos, but I did find it interesting.

3. IN-TEXT LINKS AND SEE ALSO: The in-text links are numerous and add to the overall experience. I felt that links for anything that needed to be explained were right there if I needed it – great job! There is no See Also section, although I’m not sure if it’s even needed, anyway.


 * Note to students - the "See also" section is not a required section. It is an opportunity to present links to somewhat related Wikipedia articles that are not otherwise mentioned in the article, to enable readers to explore these tangentially related topics.  It's kind of like the section at the bottom of Amazon pages that says "If you liked this book, you'll also like ...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

4. EXTERNAL LINKS: This section links to several relevant and useful articles. I’m not sure how these differ from “further reading,” though.
 * Good eye, Ashley. The "Further reading" section should be an alphabetical list of major sources that are not used as references in the article and are not available online.  The "External links" section should be a list of important sources that are available online, usually in order of importance/general usefulness/prestige.  So the online links should be moved down to External links. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Content and Sources 1. HISTORY AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I really like the “Notable choregoi” section and think it adds to the general understanding of what it means to be a choregos.

2. COMPREHENSIVENESS: I appreciate that the “philanthropic context” section brings the choregoi within a larger realm of philanthropy. I liked that differing viewpoints regarding the philanthropic motivations were discussed.

3. ACCURACY: There are a number of references that are comprehensive and viable by Wiki standards.

4. CLARITY: The article is generally clear and very well written throughout. It feels comprehensive without getting bogged down in extraneous information. The writing style/grammar is great.

5. CITATIONS: There are numerous citations that are appropriate to the article and Wikipedia standards. I am confused as to why there are both “references” and “sources” sections – shouldn’t these be connected to reduce redundancy?
 * Well, this can be done in lots of ways that are acceptable on Wikipedia. There are several different types of footnotes, and the headings are somewhat interchangeable, but here's what often happens: We have one or more lists of sources that are actually used in the article.  These are often divided into (1) book sources and listed alphabetically under a heading called "Sources" and (2) web, news, magazine and other short sources which, together with shortform page references to the "sources", are listed in the order in which they are used in the articele, and are often put under the heading "References".  Then we have footnotes that are often longer explanatory notes, and these are often put under the heading "Notes".  One could combine two or more of these various kinds of end notes, but the way it is set up in this article is the way that Tim riley (see above), my favorite Wikipedian, prefers to organize them, and if you read some of our longer articles, it makes the most sense to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

GENERAL THOUGHTS: The article feels a little short and could use another image. Otherwise, I think it fits well into the context of ancient Greek theatre and philanthropy in general. Really great job! Definitely enhanced my knowledge of the choregos.

Comments from CataVillamarin111
Wow, Kim… from two sentences to an article. Great job! I love to see how it’s taking shape.

I like the explanation about the word’s origin and current meaning. Although I would move its current meaning to the beginning, where you talk about the word’s origin. That way it will probably feel more connected, following a bit on Ashley’s feedback.
 * LEAD SECTION AND DUTIES SECTION:

Question: Shouldn’t there be a sentence or two about duties? I know you talk about it in the next section, but I feel that you haven’t actually read about what choragi do until you get here.

In the sentence “Such victories…” the word choregos is not italicized. This is just a reminder for consistency purposes 

I really like how you write and structure your ideas. However, for clarity purposes I would recommend shorted sentences, because at times you tend to include ideas within ideas making the point difficult to follow.
 * OTHER COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

I would love to read more information on the process by which choregoi are elected. Really Interesting.

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
 * See also WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
 * You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. (t)  Josve05a  (c)  22:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)