Wikipedia:Peer review/Love's Labour's Lost/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Love's Labour's Lost[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of an educational assignment. Feedback regarding any production history info needed (not sure where to find such research), readability of synopsis, and anything else would be much appreciated! I still have a handful of changes to make, including a lead section, but am certainly open to suggestion.

Thanks, Ashleybirdsell (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Peer Review Gdirado (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Structure, Format, and Appearance

1. Lead: This section needs to be expanded a bit. I would suggest a brief summary of the plot and a sentence or two that highlight the play’s historical relevance.

2. Body: This article is logically structured in appearance, with appropriate use of headings and subheadings throughout. I would suggest the following: 1) Adding Act subheadings to your “Plot” section would provide helpful context on the play’s structure. 2) I think moving the “Editions of Love’s Labors Lost” section between “Film, television and radio” and “See also” would make more sense structurally.

Question – That last point raises a question in my mind – Why are we listing so many editions? Are they all important, or do they all add to the understanding of a general encyclopedia reader? Is there a better way to organize them than alphabetically? Do you have sources that discuss which editions are the "standard" or best-accepted ones? If so, we could have a "selected" list of the most important ones, explaining why the critics/academics see them as the most important ones. See WP:IINFO. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to look into this. The list that currently exists was there before I started working on it, so I'm not sure in what context it was created. I like the idea of a "selected" list; I'll see what I can find! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3. In-text links and See also: The in-text links are numerous and comprehensive. The “See also” section could benefit from additional links, although I really enjoy the one that is there currently.

4. External links: This section links to several relevant and useful articles.

Content and Sources

1. History and Historical Development: The “Date and text,” “Analysis and criticism,” and “Performance” sections all provide historical context on the play. I would suggest perhaps grouping them together, and maybe finding a way to consolidate them under a historical information heading, especially since some of these sections are so short.

2. Comprehensiveness: This article is quite thorough and detailed. I am especially appreciative of the comprehensive “Themes,” “Music,” and “Adaptations” sections.

3. Accuracy: This article is judiciously cited and includes an expansive list of references from reliable secondary and tertiary sources.

4. Clarity: The article is generally clear and very well written throughout. Most sections are very comprehensive without getting bogged down in extraneous information.

5. Citations: The article includes extensive citations in appropriate wiki-format.

While there are a couple of areas that could use improvement, I think the editor has made some really effective and well-written improvements. Fantastic job!

Thanks, Gina! I appreciate it. Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

  • You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • I disagree with this suggestion. Compare Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet. I can elaborate if you like, but basically, I think that an infobox would contain only redundant information, once this article has an adequate WP:LEAD section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that an info-box is unhelpful clutter for such an article as this. Info-boxes are for the benefit of people who can't read, and this page is unlikely to attract many such. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is good stuff. There has been much excellent (and well-sourced and cited) material added over the past few weeks. It is impossible to disagree that the lead needs fleshing out. What your readers want from the lead (which, alas, is all some of them will read) is a summary of everything in the main text.

I was interested to read that more than 200 years went by without a production. I browsed in the old newspaper archives, and I see that in 1839 The Times was unimpressed: "The play moved very heavily. The whole dialogue is but a string of brilliant conceits, which, if not delivered well, are tedious and unintelligible. The manner in which it was played last night destroyed the brilliancy completely, and left a residuum of insipidity which was encumbered rather than relieved by the scenery and decorations".("Covent-Garden Theatre", The Times, 1 October 1839, p. 5). This production was the first of very few in England in the 19th century. Who's Who in the Theatre lists only two more: at Sadler's Wells in 1857 and the St James's Theatre in 1886. (Parker, John (1925). Who's Who in the Theatre (fifth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 10013159., p. 1126)

Later British productions that might be worth mentioning are a 1965 staging by the Royal Shakespeare Company, with a cast including Glenda Jackson, Janet Suzman and Timothy West, ("More Intelligent Than Theatrical", The Times 8 April 1965, p. 6); and, in 1968, Olivier's production for the National Theatre, with Derek Jacobi as the Duke and Jeremy Brett as Berowne. ("Gentle enchantment of Olivier production", The Times, 20 December 1968, p. 12). Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm going to be working on the lead section this week. Thanks as well for the information, it is incredibly helpful. I'm going to work on shaping these references into a cohesive Performance History section; looking forward to any further thoughts over the next few weeks! Ashleybirdsell (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. From Gaye, Freda (ed.) (1967). Who's Who in the Theatre (fourteenth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 5997224. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help) – I see a couple of other 20th century revivals in London that may or may not be worth mentioning, namely: Old Vic, 1936, with Michael Redgrave as Ferdinand and Alec Clunes as Berowne, and 1949 at the New Theatre with Redgrave as Berowne. Whether it is of any interest I don't know, but Who's Who in the Theatre, presumably following archive playbills, press reports and programmes, calls the main character "Biron" in all productions from 1839 until the 1936 production mentioned above, after which the character is given the alternative spelling. Can follow this up in the archives if wanted. The only production I have seen was by the RSC in 1994, of which the critic Michael Billington wrote, "The more I see Love's Labour's Lost, the more I think it Shakespeare's most beguiling comedy. It both celebrates and satisfies linguistic exuberance, explores the often painful transition from youth to maturity and reminds us of our common mortality." ("Love's Labour's Lost, Barbican, London", The Guardian 4 May 1994, p. A5.) Takes all sorts. It bored the pants off me, and, if memory serves, we crept away at the intermission. I must give the piece another try. – Tim riley (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Love%27s_Labour%27s_Lost/archive1&oldid=585574911"