Wikipedia:Peer review/Leonce and Lena/archive1

Leonce and Lena
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because i need help to improve this acrticle. please be nice and tell me anything.

Thanks, Nossoju (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gdirado
STRUCTURE

Lead section – The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article. As written now, it summarizes the history of the content of the play. All of this information is valuable, but should be moved to a section in the body of the article. I would suggest that you expand and properly cite this information in a Historical Context section.

Body – The body of the article is logically structured with helpful and appropriate headings and subheadings. I think that the article would be improved if you expanded the content of the some of the subheadings that currently appear quit short.

In-text links and "See Also" – This article includes many in-text links that are both useful and informative for readers. The Ponce de Leon link does not connect to an actual article, so you may want to correct this. As you add more content to the article, you should continue to be thorough with your links. This article currently does not have a “See Also section, so you might want to add one.

External links section – There is not currently an “External links” section, and I think the article would be improved if you added one. I would suggest finding websites that provide more historical context, or that link to information about productions of the play.

Images – The article contains an image that is relevant to the topic and follows Wikipedia guidelines. If you can find production stills or drawings, I think that might add to the quality of the article.

CONTENT AND SOURCES

Information – Last semester, Ssilvers told me the following regarding character sections: “The Theatre Project's article structure guidelines suggest that characters should be described, to the extent that they are important, in the Plot (sometimes called Synopsis) section, and so a separate character list section may not be needed.” Since this is the Wikipedia standard, I would suggest folding the “Character” section into the “Plot section.” I’m not sure what other sections you were planning on adding to the article, but like I said previously, I would suggest creating a “Historical context” section based on the content of the “Lead.” You might also consider creating a section that examines the themes of the play. Sources – This is the section of the article that needs the most work. The entire lead section provides valuable information, but doesn’t include any citations. There is only one source included in the article, so your references section needs to be expanded to include multiple, reputable and scholarly sources.

Nice job so far Kyu! I look forward to seeing your work on the article! Gdirado (talk)

PEER REVIEW
Hello Kyu! Nice job on the article, you have giving it a head start from where it was. I would sugest the following:

The lead could use a bit more information on the author and on the when the play premiere.

The summary looks good, but it seems like a very fast plot break down, I would keep that because it gives a break down of what each scene is; but i would add a new section that is more cleary a plot summary and expand on what happens maybe by acts in general (intead of acts and scenes).

The character analisis is great! good job!

Maybe it needs a section on the themes of the play, and how the play represent the period in which it was written. Under what style does it fit?. You can probably do a section on that.

Also adding an area of performances of the play would be helpful.

Any other photos you good fine of a performance would be good, to give the reader a visual image of what this is.

Is looking good! Good job! --BorreroFortier (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewer: please do not use level 2 or level 3 subheadings, as they disrupt the {[WP:PR]] page. Level 4 is fine – I have adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)