| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I have made some serious additions to this article, but I am a first time editor, and this is a part of a Graduate Level course project. I am not thrilled with the way the seasons are listed as the Table of Contents is so unwieldy.
I still have another 16 seasons to add as well. You can see my progress in my Sandbox.
The other issue I am having is with citing the same source multiple times. This article will require over 80 citations, but right now I am closing in on 150 because I keep citing the same article over and over again. I know there is a way around it, but I keep frustratingly failing at accomplishing it. Any help would be appreciated.
And any other feedback would be great as well.
Thanks, OrangeZabbo (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Orange Zabbo,
Hope my below comments are helpful.
Lead section: I think your lead section is just detailed enough to give us the needed overview of what the organization is. It's concise but includes a necessary amount of detail. Structure: the structure makes sense and is fluid from section to section- however as we discussed in class- I would revisit how you've formatted the seasons and condense it so your contents page isn't so long. Maybe put the staff under the artistic directors.
Sections: are you adding an awards section? Or are you including that information in the specific seasons? I absolutely think it's worth noting in at least a subsection.
You did an excellent job at linking your article to other relevant information. I know you have a lot of times articles as sources, perhaps add one or two big ones to the external links section as well.
Images: I don't necessarily know that images are necessary and doubt you'd be permitted to add production images which would be the only way that I think viewers would learn from an image. History: I like how you showed us the history through the different venues and included past artistic directors on top of just adding a history section. Comprehensive: the article is absolutely comprehensive despite you feeling frustrated over the lack of seasons. You're doing a great job.
Accuracy and clarity: the presented information seems to be accurate and supported by an extensive list of sources. The information is clear. Once you condense the references section you should be solid.
Andreabee12 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello OrangeZabbo,
I'm going to read through the article more carefully later, but I think using a table for the show listing would be more appropriate. You can read up on using Wikipedia Tables at the link, and I think you'd be fine copying the wikicode for one of the examples and using it as a starting point.
I know it says citation needed, but are Webber, Aukin, and Benson English or British?
I'll be back for more comments. 173.220.31.163 (talk) 07:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I forgot to login. The above comment is mine. Decafespresso (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello again!
The rest of my review follows. Please let me know if you have any questions.
The lead section:
The sentence “With a founding mission…” isn’t clear in terms of the sentence structure. I think making distinctions between the physical relocations, the growth in size and scope of the company (Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway), and the evolution of their mission over time might help. You might also want to consider separating the missions to another sentence, with additional descriptions on their productions.
I think “ones from the Obies, Drama Desks, Drama Critics, and the New York Times” should be mentioned using the formal names of the awards and I also think the recipients of the awards (theater itself, productions, individuals) should also be mentioned somewhere though not necessarily in the lead section.
Organization of sections / subsections:
I agree with Andreabee12 that you should add information on Awards.
I think the sections Artistic Staff and Staff should be merged.
It might be helpful to have a section describing Productions/Programs/Series to provide a context for the list of the past productions. It’s likely that the readers don’t know what these productions are especially because many of them are rarely seen or new. I think a narrative that gives a general sense of their programming and a table of past productions would be great.
The Physical Space section focuses on the history of the physical spaces, but is there anything interesting/relevant about the current theatre architecture? I remember the current theater being a black box theater and it makes me wonder how you count the number of seats.
In-text links:
You might want to add links to Off-Off Broadway, awards such as Obie Award, Artistic Director, and repertory theatre.
History:
Was Soho Rep. originally named SoHo Rep. with a capital R?
Today Soho Rep. is called Soho Rep. even though it’s neither located in SoHo nor a repertory theatre. That itself might be a fact worth stating and I’d be interested in why they kept the name and why/when they stopped being a repertory theatre.
When/why/how did their mission change?
In Soho Rep.’s case, the transition from Off-Off Broadway to Off Broadway is not because of the number of seats. Even though it is only a matter of union contracts in reality the readers may think of Off Broadway as 100-499 seats so it might be worth noting. Were you able to find any information on why they switched to Off Broadway contract?
Citations and references:
This may help to clean up some of the citations: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citing_multiple_pages_of_the_same_source