Wikipedia:Peer review/Greek chorus/archive1

Greek chorus
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…I want to get feedback on how my article is progressing!

Thanks, Yona M. Corn (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ashley
1. LEAD: The lead section needs to be expanded to give a more general overview of the Greek Chorus and its role in ancient Greek theatre and society.


 * Actually, that is more for a "Background" or "history" section. The WP:LEAD section is supposed to be an overview/summary of the whole article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

2. BODY: This is really picky, but I would swap the order of the sentences “The chorus stood in the orchestra” and “There were twenty-four members in comedies”… that would help the flow, since you had been talking about the size previously. (But, not sure if where the chorus stands is relevant to the “Size” section… maybe the section could be “Size and onstage placement” or something similar, if you expand upon that fact.)

I would put the “Sophocles vs Euripdes” section up by dramatic context… I think that makes more sense in terms of flow.

3. IN-TEXT LINKS AND SEE ALSO: There are a thorough number of in-text links to relevant articles, which definitely enhance my understanding of the topic!

4. EXTERNAL LINKS: Is your further reading section the same as your sources? I couldn’t tell. Great sources, though!


 * Note - "further reading" should be a list of major sources that are not actually used in the article. The Sources section should include the book sources that are used in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Content and Sources 1. HISTORY AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT: I like the idea of utilizing the Etymology section; I would love to see another critical opinion as to its origin (if one exists).

2. COMPREHENSIVENESS: Is there information available as to the first appearance of the Greek chorus in ancient Greek theatre? Or, any outlying Greek plays that were unique in that they did not use a chorus? I think it could be fun to also provide more of a sense of when choral odes occurred in the context of the play.

3. ACCURACY: There are a number of references that are comprehensive and viable by Wiki standards. I’m not sure if it’s correct to call the “stage management” section by that name – maybe “techniques” is a better heading? (Actually, maybe this would be a great spot for the “where the chorus stands” fact to go!)

4. CLARITY: I’m not sure if the “Richard Wagner” section makes sense with the rest of the article. But, if you decide to keep it, I would include it with “Modern choruses.” It’s definitely interesting, just not sure if it’s relevant. The article is generally clear throughout. The writing style is in line with Wiki standards, great job!

5. CITATIONS: The citations that exist are great; there are a few that have been marked as “citation needed” and should be addressed appropriately. Otherwise, the research is great!

GENERAL THOUGHTS: I think the article feels really comprehensive. Are there any more images you could use? You’ve done a great job and I can’t wait to see where it ends up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleybirdsell (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by CataVillamarin:
I like how this article has progressed. I know this is a hard topic, as most of the information is based on assumptions. However, I like how the different points of view of historians and academics are shown and confronted in the article.

LEAD SECTION: This section could be expanded more. Maybe, I would suggest adding an approximate time frame for when it was used, and the playwrights who made an outstanding use of it.

ETYMOLOGY: I like this idea! Love to see where words come form. Maybe this could be expanded by talking about similar terms from that time (i.e. Choregos) and explain their relation to this term? That could be a great opportunity to link to other wiki articles.

MODERN CHORUSES: I like how it explains how the chorus evolved and is now used is opera. I would like to see maybe more information about the use of the chorus has evolved in the opera as well, as this process can possibly relate or parallel the evolution process in ancient Greece.

Overall, congratulations! I like how everything is clear and easy to understand. Lots of great things can be built upon this organized structure!CataVillamarin111 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ssilvers
Great job so far. Some thoughts:
 * The Lead section should act as an introduction and overview of the article and should summarize very briefly, all of the major points made in the body of the article below. See WP:LEAD for more information.
 * Etymology - You should also refer to a standard Greek lexicon, probably Liddell and Scott.
 * Stubby sections – The article contained several very short sections. Wikipedia's style guidelines say "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose."  I tried to combine the short sections with related sections, but if you feel that it doesn't work, feel free to undo it.
 * Dramatic function - More citations are needed. If the material is from the same reference, the reference can be repeated.
 * Modern choruses - The article says: "Opera as we know it today evolved directly out of the Greek style." This is a pretty controversial statement (indeed, I think the Opera project folks would dispute it). It certainly needs a strong reference that specifically says this.
 * Wagner - Your examples show that he made use of Greek drama, but can you be more specific in how he used or paid homage to the Greek chorus, specifically?
 * The Rodgers and Hammerstein and Aristotle references are incomplete. Please add publisher and date information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Technical note to reviewers: Please do not subdivide using level-2 headings, because they muck up the WP:PR page. Level-4, please (as instructed at the top of the edit window for this page). Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * 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) 00:52, 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)  23:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)