Wikipedia:Peer review/Theatre of Cruelty/archive1

Theatre of Cruelty
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am editing and improving the article as an assignment for a Theater History course at CUNY - Brooklyn College.

Thanks, Gdirado (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few minor amendments – typos etc – which please check to see you're happy with them. Revert any you disagree with. This is a most promising article, and I'll certainly look in again shortly with substantive comments. Tim riley (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from Tim riley

The article has been improved since Gdirado began work on it last month. I have a few suggestions for further improvement: I hope these few points are useful. Don't hesitate to let me know on my talk page if I can be of any further help. – Tim riley (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Theory
 * First two paragraphs lack references. I suggest that if Gdirado thinks they are valid he/she should dig out citations; if they seem like an earlier editor's personal take on the topic they can be removed: all statements in Wikipedia need to comply with our key principles of verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.
 * Not sure why "impossible theatre" is in bold. Looks rather odd.
 * The statement that Müller, Churchill and Bausch have been identified etc needs a citation to justify it. Who, in short, has so identified them?
 * Block quote at end of section: this was there before Gdirado began work, but I can't work out the strange bursts of capital letters, and the whole block needs sorting out.
 * Empirics
 * I have no idea what "a conceptual heuristic" is. Can this phrase be put in plain English?
 * The para is mostly uncited. If the Walker ref covers all the para it needs to be repeated at the end. If it doesn't a suitable ref is needed.
 * General
 * Quotation marks – Wikipedia's standard is double quotes, so that, e.g., another 'Artaud'  and implies, 'untimely' should be tidied up.
 * Except in quotations, where the original spelling must be faithfully reproduced, the spelling of "theatre/theater" should be consistent throughout the article. As the title is "Theatre of Cruelty", that spelling seems called for.

Comments from Kfurano1129
Overall, you have made great progress on this article, Gina - good work! Below you will find my peer review for our class assignment. Hope it is helpful.
 * Structure, format & appearance
 * Lead section - Great use of in-text links in this section! In its current state, the lead provides a sufficient summary of your topic. However, I think it could perhaps be expanded upon slightly to provide a more thorough overview of the article that follows - perhaps a sentence or two about how this philosophy was put into practice on stage and its continuing impact. Also, I'm not quite sure, but I think there should be a citation for Artaud's quote (which is fabulous!).
 * Body - the body of this article is well-structured into logical sections, each providing valuable information on the topic. Great work on this!
 * In-text links and "See Also" - this article is an excellent example of valuable in-text links, which are present throughout and provide necessary insight on the topic to the user. The "See Also" section is also thorough and well-structured.
 * External links section - Good work here so far; the external links provide valuable insight. I think that perhaps this section could be expanded slightly, however. Perhaps you could include links to recent stage productions or more practitioners of this theatrical philosophy.
 * Images - this article currently contains a relevant image that adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines. If possible, it might be beneficial to include an image from an Artaud production.


 * Content and sources
 * Information - this article presents a comprehensive and accurate overview of the topic. The only suggestion that I would make would be to perhaps include information about the origins of Artaud's philosophy historically - who or what were his influences? It would be interesting to learn more about the historical context in which Artaud developed this theatrical philosophy - what was happening in the world that lead to this radical idea?
 * Sources - this article currently uses reliable scholarly sources that support the information provided. However, there are several facts that don't seem to have citations - particularly in the "Theory" section. I think that would strengthen the article as a whole. The current structure of citations and sources sections also doesn't appear to adhere to Wikipedia standards, as I understand them. I would replace the "Footnotes" section with a "References" section that lists all journal and news sources (fully cited), and that then refers to a "Sources" section that lists all books. I had both Tim riley and SSilvers give me this advise last semester, and it seems to more in line with Wiki common practice.

Keep up the great work and I hope this is helpful! Kfurano1129 (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello! I think the article is looking good, your improvements have made it a more informative article, and is easy to travel through the article. I would try go get some information about the relationship between the actors and the way Artaud approach the methods theatre of cruelty on them. Aside from that, you could expand on the section of people that use his methods and places that try to experiment with them in the 21rst century. Maybe as you find more information on the subject it can be more subdivided by how Theater of Cruelty affected each single are of the performance (actors, rehersals, experimentation, audience, design...etc)

Looking Good! --BorreroFortier (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)