Wikipedia:Peer review/Well-made play/archive1

Well-made play
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… I am editing it as part of an assignment for my theater history class at Brooklyn College. I appreciate your input!

Thanks, Mcraab123 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
This is a very interesting article, but there are too many statements that lack citations. For instance, in the first para of "Form" there are no citations before the graphic, and we need to see where the statements about neoclassicism, Aeschylus and Aristotle come from. The second, third and fourth paras of that section are also rather sparsely cited, and the "History" section is hardly cited at all. The later sections are also rather badly-off for citations.

There are several statements, such as the précis of Tosca, that I happen to know are accurate, but the reader who doesn't happen to know is entitled to be assured from the presence of a citation of a reliable source that the statement is correct. Looking at the text as it was when you began working on it I can see that the lack of citations is less your fault than that of those who edited before you. But if you can fill in any of their missing citations as well as yours it would be much to your credit. You have greatly improved the article already, let me add.

There are two drafting points to be looked at:


 * American or English spelling? We have "theatre" and "theater". Wikipedia's rule is to stick with the variant of the English language in which an article was originally written – and as it was in British English when you began work on it, you should Anglicise any American spellings – theater → theatre, mold → mould etc.


 * "Although George Bernard Shaw scorned the "well-made play", he accepted them" – this lurches from singular to plural (not your drafting, I know).

That's all from me, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you want any further input.  Tim riley  talk    13:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

This is all very helpful, Tim. Thanks for taking the time to review. Mcraab123 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Marni. You have clearly put a lot of work into this and it is impressive. I think the lead paragraph is excellent! My main input overall would be to make it all more concise and focused. I can clearly see why everyhting in this article relates to "The Well Made Play" but I am not sure it is necessary. In particular I think the "History" and "Criticism" sections can be shortened. It seemed to me that the meat of each of the sub headers in the "History" section, is contained in the last sentence of each. I am not suggesting you take everything but the last sentence out I think the backgound info can be a bit more direct. Though I know with Boulevard Theatres you are dealing with a topic that does not have a Wikipage you can link to so in order to discuss them at all, you have to explain first... I think that is all. The article does look great and reads like someone (scholarly) took a lot of care with it. Hope this helped some.

Marisela Grajeda Gonzalez (talk)

Comments from Gilliark

This is a very fleshed out article that has a lot of useful information to readers. The structure is organized and makes sense, with a strong lead section that gives solid background about the genre without going into too much detail. As well, you have a lot of great in text links to other Wiki articles. It is easy to jump to new articles to find further information. I very much appreciated the illustration of the structure of the genre but would love a picture of scribe or another important playwright which you could probably find on wikicommons. All of the information does seem accurate and thorough, but I do agree with Tim in that the more citations the merrier. In terms of clarity, the section describing the form of the genre could be better organized to create a clearer picture of how a well made play is made. As well, in the last paragraph of the Criticism section Dumas, fils' name is spelled Doumas, which I believe is a typo. In the examples section there are no examples by Scribe, yet the article describes him as a leader in the field. Using A Glass of Water or A Scrap of Paper in this section might really add to the continuity of the article. Using problem plays like A Doll's House in the examples section might be confusing to readers since while it is similar to the well-made play, it is not truly a part of the genre. Finally, the last section, OffShoots could use more explantation. In what way are offshoots different from the original genre and different from genres and writers influenced by the well-made play genre detailed above in the New Forms section? Overall, the article is strong and would certainly prove useful to readers and researchers! Great job! Best, Gillian

Thanks! Thanks for all this, Gillian! I made a lot of adjustments based on your comments. Very helpful. Mcraab123 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from MJ94

 * Lede
 * The lede gives a strong overview of the information without going into too much detail.
 * The quote from Marvin Carlson should not be broken up like that. Please see Quotations.
 * Form
 * I'm not sure "flavour" is the correct wording here. It makes me think of "taste" too much.
 * The second paragraph is laid out very nicely with a lot of information; however, I feel that it is lacking some citations (throughout this whole section there are only 7 citations and often 2 citations to one fact).
 * Act One should be capitalized, correct?
 * History
 * Again, I don't have too many critiques of the content, but I do think it is important to have more citations.
 * Example
 * This section heading is far too long.
 * How do we know that it is one of the better-known plays? Is this a fact or an opinion? If it's an opinion, a citation is needed.
 * This whole section has only one citation. It'd definitely be good to add more.
 * Breakdown of Act One
 * act 1 → Act One
 * Should the characters' names really be capitalized?
 * Why is the first column all capitalized while the second two are not?

The last two sections are very well written and it's evident that you put a lot of time and effort into your research. I do think it's important that you cite sources more often. It's clear you got this information from somewhere, all you have to do is cite it. I disagree with the previous reviewer that the History sections should be shortened – I think they are very informative and interesting. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. MJ94 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)