Talk:Loa (Spanish play)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vivianavrgs. Peer reviewers: RaineRules, Making.history.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project: Article Evaluation Form

Name: ___Michael Raine_______________________________________

Article title & URL: ______Loa (Spanish Play)_______________________________

Instructions: Provide a standardized evaluation of your assigned article’s quality by selecting and bolding the best response for each closed-ended question and typing in a non-bold response to each open-ended question. For all rating questions, lower numbers correspond to poorer quality, while higher numbers correspond to higher quality. Make sure to save the file with your changes (for inclusion in your Electronic Portfolio at the end of the semester) and print out a copy to bring to class on the day your first draft of the NA and WP is due.

I. Structure, Format, and Appearance

1. Any Wikipedia article’s lead section should provide a clear overview of its subject that highlights its significance without getting into details that would be more appropriate for the body of the article.

How would you rate your article’s lead section? 4

Why? I would like a little more info in the lead – a quick definition of autos sacramentales or dates maybe?

2. High-quality Wikipedia articles typically have a well-structured body that uses a logical series of section and subsection headings to help organize their contents.

How would you rate your article’s structure? 4

Why? Great and clear – quickly defines what a Loa is, then presents variations and authors clearly and simply.

Which sections do you think should be added, eliminated, merged, or subdivided (either by splitting them into two or more separate sections or by creating subsections within them), and why? I would enjoy a bit more info about most of the authors mentioned who wrote Loas – why they were different, types of fame…Im not sure what, but Im interested and want to know more. I appreciate the links, but that is sort of more than I wanted to know….lol.

3. Wikipedia articles should be explicitly connected to related content with in-text links and a “see also” list of relevant articles. How well does your article accomplish this? Great links to the other authors, any luck finding some video of Loa in performance? That could be tricky…. 4. 5. In addition to linking readers to other content within Wikipedia, articles should contain an “external links” section with links to relevant non-Wikipedia websites but no links to external sites in the article text itself. How well does your article accomplish this? I assume youre still working on this

6. Does your article contain appropriate images to help illustrate its written contents? Yes

II. Content and Sources

7. How would you rate the article’s coverage of the history or historical development of the topic? 4

Why? Clearly defines why Loas came into being and their function

8. Overall, how would you rate the comprehensiveness of the information presented in your article? 4

Why? I would like more info about the Loas in Autos Sacramentales vs. comedies. I could also use a bit of info about each playwright, and how they are different/unique

9. Overall, how would you rate the accuracy of the information presented in your article? 5

Why? Seems all on point to me

10. Overall, how would you rate the clarity of the information presented in your article? 4

Why? Nicely organized and readable

11. How would you rate your article’s adherence to Wikipedia’s guidelines for citations and references (see the referencing handout)? 5

Why? Looks good to me

III. Overall Assessment

12. Rate your article according to the Quantitative Article Quality Metric (for criteria, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Assessment)

Comprehensiveness (1-10 points) ___7__

Sourcing (0-6 points) __6___

Neutrality (0-3 points) __3___

Readability (0-3 points) __2___

Formatting (0-2 points) __2___

Illustrations (0-2 points) ___2__ Total (1-26 points) __22___

RaineRules (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Tara's Peer Review

Hi Viviana,

Firstly, this is super comprehensive and well organized. Great work!

Your lead section is very clear. However, you end by stating the purpose of the loa, while the first section of your article is focused on purpose. Not sure how closely your lead structure should follow article structure, but if you want you could put the purpose sentence before the sentence describing how it used praise.

Your purpose section is really clear and informative. In your history section as you outline the works of specific writers, it might be helpful to attribute years to these authors, to gain a sense of timelines. Structurally, this section is clear, however I have a few thoughts about content:

It might be helpful to provide one sentence about what a comedia or auto sacramental section is at the top of each of those sections. I know you have internal links to those pages, but a one sentence summary would be great. You provide 2 sentences about comedies in your history of loss section, and that could perhaps be relocated to the top of the loss of comedies section. Or not.

You provide an example of one author's actual writing. As discussed briefly in class regarding quotes, I'm not sure if quoting the loa is useful to the reader here, it is really interesting, but I'm not sure if it serves the article to only provide within it one actual example, as it gives that example more weight than those which are simply described or summarized. This is totally debatable though, so just sharing thoughts.

Throughout, I found a couple of sentences that perhaps could be reworked a little. Below I've quoted sentences and given brief descriptions of possible improvements.

"His loas tend to have no connection to the play that follows and are characterized by their playful, humorous, trivial and always ending with a positive appeal to the audience for the rest of the performance." Feels like there is perhaps a word missing in this sentence, or like the syntax could be smoother.

"Lope de Rueda wrote and spoke himself, introductory notes called Introito que hace el Autor. He also wrote introitos or argumentos for his later plays, Colloquio de Camila and Colloquio de Timbria." The first part of this sentence is unclear to me, not sure what you mean by 'wrote and spoke himself'.

"Because of beginning monologue form of the Loa, it is also considered the origins of monologue in Latin America." First part of this sentence feels unclear, is there maybe a word missing?

Within this introductory section of Loas in Latin America, it might be helpful to give a little bit more info about how/why loas were introduced in Latin/Hispanic America. In your lead you mention colonization, maybe a sentence about this in this section would be informative. It may also be helpful to outline in which Latin American countries/regions loas were being written. You give specific examples from Mexico, Peru, and Brazil, but might be helpful to list/outline these regions at the top.

Hope this is helpful! Making.history (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)