Wikipedia:Peer review/Life Is a Dream/archive1
Life Is a Dream[edit]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I've been working on major changes and would appreciate your feedback.
Thanks, CataVillamarin111 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review by Kfurano1129[edit]
STRUCTURE, FORMAT & APPEARANCE: This article has an exemplary lead section. It concisely and articulately introduces and summarizes the article, and sets the reader up for the details that are to come in the following sections. My only suggestion would be to add a citation to the last sentence about designating the play as one of Calderon’s best known works.
- Note - Lead sections should not have references. All of the information in the lead should be expanded upon in the body below (or, the other way of saying this is that the Lead should just give an overview of what's in the body - see WP:LEAD), and the reference should go with the information in the body. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The structure of the article is both helpful and particularly relevant to the topic of the article. I enjoy how the subheadings in each section make it easy to skim and digest, as seen in both the plot synopsis and the themes/motifs sections. The sections that are dedicated to particular issues of interest with the play, including subplots and specific soliloquies are particularly genius, in my opinion, displaying a very keen understanding of what the reader needs to know about the play overall. I also particularly appreciate the “info box.” It provides a quick “at-a-glance” summary of the play. Finally, I really like the bulleted structure of the adaptation section; again, it enhances the article’s readability. I don’t believe that there are any sections that need to be eliminated or merged. I actually think this articles structure is one of the stronger and most logical that I’ve seen in a Wikipedia article about a play. However, I do agree with Catalina that a character list with brief descriptions would help enhance the quality of the article. I would also recommend the addition of a section adding historical context and/or performance history.
While this article contains a thorough and reliable external link section, I think that there are more opportunities for relevant “in text” links within the article. I would suggest reexamining the article with this in mind.
The article contains many images, all of which appear to conform to Wikipedia copyright guidelines. However, there are two images whose relevance isn’t immediately clear: the royal palace and the Oedipus Sphinx vase. I would suggest either adding context through captions (including a possible in-text link) or considering removing one or both of them.
CONTENT & SOURCES: While there is some historical context presented in the article’s introduction, I think this article could be improved by the addition of further history of the play, or perhaps placing the play in the historical context of Calderon’s work, or the greater context of Spanish theater during this time.
The article is written very clearly and, in terms of the more literary elements of the topic, is comprehensive in its breadth. I am particularly fond of the plot synopsis section; it is both clear and very well written. Again, the only thing that I think the article is missing in terms of a comprehensive treatment of the topic is the addition of historical context of some kind beyond the introduction.
In terms of references, the article contains a extensive list of references that are correctly cited throughout the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. The list of references is a well-balanced combination of secondary and tertiary sources. However, there are many sections of the article that require additional citation. I would recommend a reexamination of the existing sources to fulfill these needs or seeking additional sources to support the information presented in these sections. If such sources cannot be found, I recommend the removal of some of this information to increase the strength of the article.
Overall, with the addition of citations, I believe this article is well on its way to becoming a strong Wikipedia entry, thanks to the work of the editor thus far.
Peer Review by Gdirado[edit]
Structure, Format, and Appearance
1. Lead: This section concisely summarizes the content of the article without going into too much detail. It also succinctly highlights the historical relevance and significance of the play. I’m not sure the in-text links to “free-will” and “fate” are needed, but I would defer to a Wikipedia expert on this point.
2. Body: This article is very well structured. It is organized in a clear and readable format with logical headings and sub-headings throughout. I particularly appreciate the clear and illuminating sub-headings in the “Themes and motifs” section, and bulleted “Adaptations” section.
3. In-text links and See also: While the article includes many helpful and relevant in-text links, I think it could benefit from even more additions. A couple of examples I found in the “Themes and motifs” section include: Hinduism, Platonism, and Oedipus. The “See also” section could also benefit from a few additions.
4. External links: This section is comprehensive and links to relevant articles with the exception of the first link. It looks like Repertorio Español took down the information on their 2008 Life is a Dream production.
Content and Sources
1. History and Historical Development: While this is currently a strong article, I think it could benefit from a section that discusses more of the historical context of the play and its reception.
2. Comprehensiveness: This is a very thorough and judiciously researched article. The “Plot” section conveys a very complex story without being too dense or overly detailed. The “Themes and motifs” section is clear and concise, while providing comprehensive analysis. I appreciate the article’s exploration of different interpretations of and criticisms of the play. Overall, I think that the article is thorough in its treatment of the topic.
3. Accuracy: While there are some missing citations, the reference list is lengthy and includes many reliable secondary and tertiary sources.
4. Clarity: This article is very clear and well written. The only critique I have echoes Kim’s comment that the relevance of some of the images is not immediately clear.
5. Citations: With the exception of the few that are missing, this article has an exhaustive reference list and comprehensive citations throughout in appropriate wiki format.
Overall, I think the editor has done fantastic work in improving this article. Great job!
Peer Review Yona M. Corn[edit]
I think you have done an excellent job thus far -- I can't believe there was so little out there about this work! Here are my comments, broken down by section.
OPENING I'm still a little unclear as to what constitutes a good opening on Wikipedia, but I like yours! If anything, it could probably provide less detail, as you start to go into a bit of a plot synopsis.
- Please read WP:LEAD. For an example of a good Lead section, see Hamlet. The Lead section must, in addition to introducing the article, give an overview/summary of all the most important points covered in more detail in the article below, including, of course, a brief statement of the plot of the subject play. WP:LEAD says, in part: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. ... The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic [as reflected in the sources cited below, and] significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The ... lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs...." See, in particular, WP:LEAD#Introductory text. See also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
SYNOPSIS Really good work here. There are some minor English corrections ... for example “He tells them that his only crime was being born. Clotaldo, Segismundo's old warden and tutor, arrives and orders his guards to disarm and kill the intruders. But he recognizes Rosaura's sword as his own that he had left behind in Muskovy years ago for his child to bear” should be one sentence (comma after intruders). If anything, you could probably cut down the plot synopsis a little bit since it is so in depth, but that is really up to the readers discretion .... meaning, you are very thorough and detailed and some plot synopses tend to be a little more vague. I like the level of description here, though. It gives the reader an unquestionably strong understanding of the story.
Overall, this section just needs some minor grammatical tweaking, which I'd be happy to help you with. Emphasis on MINOR.
- Sentences in Wikipedia tend to be on the short side, and our Manual of Style suggests using Plain English style. We are really doing a kind of technical writing, here, unlike essay writing, where sentences tend to be longer. Long, complex sentences are usually broken up here when articles progress to consideration for promotion. I disagree that it would be helpful to combine the sentences as Yona suggests above. I agree, however, that anything we can do to streamline the plot synopsis would be helpful, as it is a bit long. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
THEMES AND MOTIFS I like the idea of having a section like this in here. I got a little confused at the second paragraph of "Fate vs. Free Will". I know you are making a connection here, but you lost me! A little more explanation and elaboration would be helpful here.
ROSAURA SUBPLOT Very interesting, especially the information on how Rosaura's character has been viewed by critics. However, I would write with the assumption that your reader is completely ignorant about the subject at hand. I am and so I got a little lost with the complexity of the facts you are presenting. Present the same facts, just expand upon them. You might even get to the point that you are able to create subsections, but you already have a ton of information -- I don't know how easy it would be to get MORE. I think it's just a question of how you are presenting your information.
SEGiSMUNDO'S SOLILOQUY I'm not sure that you need much of the first paragraph here. It could be broken down. Also, I think portions of the second paragraph could go up with Themes and Motifs. Lastly, remind us of what Segismundo's soliloquy is and why it is important (the reader is not going to remember from your plot synopsis)
SEGISMUNDO'S CONCLUSION I feel like this section could use a different title. Also, explain how he is a Machiavellian prince. Once again, complicated concept and your readers might not remember everything. I think there is a balance between being too repetitive and simply reiterating key moments in the plot.
In closing, you have done excellent work on this. Aside from a few grammatical errors that are easily corrected, I would just say to assume a lack of knowledge on behalf of the reader when you are making your more complicated arguments. You have some excellent points, and this is clearly well researched. You just need to expand out in the areas I mentioned. Overall, brava! Job well done!
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]
- Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
- See also WP:OVERLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- The script has spotted the following contractions: won't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
- 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.