Jring333

Jring333, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jring333! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi Johanna! Just wanted to introduce myself and say hi on your Wikipedia page. See you in class today!AngRenzi (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Jring333, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Abraham (Hrotsvitha play)

Hi, the article had no sources or citations so I moved it into draft. Please work on improving the article there and then submit via WP:AFC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Article review!

Hey Johanna!

This is my review of your Abraham draft! I'm basing this review primarily on the five things that Wikipedia indicates make up a good article:

A lead section that is easy to understand: I know that there's more to come with this article (obviously, you started from scratch!) so I won't say a lot, yet. But I feel like this opening paragraph feels more like a 'plot summary' of the play, rather than the 'opening paragraph' of an article. However, I suspect there'll be some more stuff to come, so no worries! A clear structure: Structurally it is splendid, so far! Balanced coverage: Likewise, in terms of what is there right now, it's great. Neutral content: It is perfectly neutral in describing the play. Reliable sources: Again, it's early in the article's genesis, so I'd anticipate there being more references, soon--so any judgment is quite premature.

Great job so far!!!

Tobymsinger (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback for Richard Foreman

Hi Johanna!

I took a peek at the history of the article and it seems like you got rid of a lot of the content. I think it streamlined the article very well. It seems like the article is very complete already. I would suggest adding a section about critical responses to his work. That would serve as a way for readers to get a sense of what his work is. I also wonder if there is something to be added after the sentence about the theater headquarters moving. Maybe, as a reference, talk about what show opened the space? And how many seats that theater is? But overall, great work so far! --Ee1013 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Foreman Feedback

Hey Jo.

Nice article so far. It has loads of information, and looks really good. I just have a couple of notes. The first is, I wonder if there's a way to talk about all of his accomplishments in a clearer way. For example, in the life and career section there are repeated information of what he has achieved. Presenting the works of Suzan Lori-Parks at the New York Shakespeare Festival comes up twice, as well as him putting on The Threepenny Opera. It might be clearer for readers if you cut the second time they're mentioned or put include it into when they're first mentioned. Moving on, The Ontological-Hysteric Theatre seems interesting, I wonder if there could be more details about it. Such as, if it's still going, what does it do now, does it still adhere to what Foreman wanted it to in his mission statement. I like the lists of everything he's done.

Overall, the article isn't biased, has a nice reference page, good sources, lengthy and clear. Great job so far!

Asbenn (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Asbenn