User talk:Emeraldhutton/sandbox

Some great observations here, Emerald, particularly on the need for more academic sources, and greater representations of the diversity of reactions to the play.

While I agree that the Plot section could be fleshed out, particularly the sections of the 3rd and 4th act, it seems unfair to call it non-existent – after all, it includes a character list and summaries of the act.

I agree that the character list is useful, but disagree that it would be improved by removing minor characters.

A quick reminder to be careful to write in complete grammatical sentences. There are some incomplete sentences in this evaluation exercise.

Be careful also with suggestions that the article should help readers understand the lives of Dubliners at the time the play was written. The article needs to remain focused on the play.

The section “in performance” could also do with being fleshed out with notable productions.

In terms of references, I can see a number of areas that need improvement. When the article refers to the 2016 production at the National Theatre, it does not specify which national theatre. It also says that the production was well received, without giving a source for the information about reception.

The quote from WB Yeats is criticizing the people who protested the first run of the play, as opposed to the play itself. However, you are absolutely right that other people’s opinions on the protests are necessary to achieve balance here. We will learn in class about the reasons for the protests and the controversy that both preceded and proceeded from them. This material would make an excellent addition to the page.

Very good observation that none of the sources here are academic sources. Nice work spotting broken links. And good engagement with the talk page.

EmerOToole (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Emeraldhutton:

Just a quick note here to urge you to rethink the inclusion of substantial biographical details about Seán O'Casey on the page for The Plough and the Stars - this material belongs on the author page. A little more care needed with grammar and word choice. For example, O'Casey's art is not surreal. Take care to write in complete grammatical sentences. Looking forward to seeing how this develops. EmerOToole (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Emerald,

Your article starts strong with a brief intro to the author and his general life, good stuff.

When you say in the 'Early life' he came from a large protestant family and influenced his writing, expand why, a good approach would to relate how his Protestant working class upbringing seemed to affect his personal and literary politics, i.e. writing lots of plays about Irish working class struggles, like the Plough and Stars!

This alone would be a good addition to the main wikipedia article on O'casey's early life, adding much more would be ambitious. I think the parameters of this assignment is to add some unique research, but more along the lines of a paragraph or two, no need to try to reshape a whole article.

As Prof Emer says above, the section on O'Casey's early life would belong on the main author page, if thats what you want to work on. But if you want to work on the the plough and the stars, that's a separate page. That would not be the place for biographical info about O'casey as that is covered in the separate author page for him.

My recommendation for further drafting if you want to work on the would be to expand the reaction section of the Plough and Stars page, as it is very short. A great approach would be to talk about how Act II in particular caused outrage in the post-rising audience of 1926. We covered a lot of this in class and I'm sure Prof Emer could point you at some great research.

You could get a head start though and search JSTOR for academic articles, if you're unfamiliar with it, all you need to access the articles is your Concordia ID.

Good start!

Keenan.Churchill (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Emeraldhutton: Just a note to remind you to start working the feedback above into the material in your sandbox. Remember that this is a graded part of the assignment. Please finish it by the end of the week, as it is significantly overdue. Failure to do so will affect your grade. EmerOToole (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

EmerOToole I am willing to take the late mark, just let me know if I've got the A OKAY to post it out of my sandbox -Emerald Hutton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldhutton (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Emeraldhutton:

Thanks for this. Well done on editing out the two superfluous characters in the list on the wiki page.

There is some very good work here, but unfortunately nothing is ready to be moved to the main page. If you like, I can grant you an extension until Monday to continue to work on some of this material, using my directions below. Or, I can grade you based on the research and work that has gone into your sandbox page. If you choose the former, here are my suggestions:

Please do not move the section you have created on the author, as this material is covered on O'Casey's page.

The summary of Act 4 is too long in comparison to the other act summaries on the wikipedia page. Less significant details should be deleted and it should be condensed to about half its current length. A revised, more concise summary of this Act could be an excellent contribution to the page.

While I like a lot of what you've started to do in the section on themes, the material just doesn't really fit here. For example, the expanded character list, while good, does not belong in a section on themes, but, rather, on characters. I appreciate the work that went into this section, but I don't think we're going to be able to bring it up to scratch for the purposes of this assignment. I recommend not transferring it to the main site.

The section on later criticism, similarly, is not actually about later criticism, but about the controversy surrounding the initial production of the play. This controversy already has its own well-drafted section. Again, I don't think we're going to be able to use this material.

I hope this advice is not disheartening - you've done some really good research, and your grade will reflect this. However, because you did not respond fully to your peer review and feedback earlier in the semester, you are effectively one draft behind most of your classmates. This means that we just don't have the time to bring this interesting and well-researched material up to the point where it can be published publicly. The shortened version of your summary of Act 4, however, could make a very useful contribution to the page. EmerOToole (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)