Talk:Love in Several Masques/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Great work on this article! In the spirit of improvement, I have a few suggestions.

The lede is a bit short, but is fine for the article right now. The final sentence, however, is a real mouthful and would be improved by cutting into two. I also might recommend the first line be a simpler statement, perhaps beginning with "Love in Several Masques is a play by Henry Fielding." Under the main image, "titlepage" is one word... I usually see it as two. Is this a British spelling?

Saying the play was "never reviewed" contradicts a later section called "Critical response". Should it say the play was never reviewed "in its initial performance"? Further down, "It was first printed", i.e. in book form? Pamphlet form?

Would it be more sensible to have the summary first, as reflected in the lede? It seems logical.

I think the plot section should be expanded. I'm having a hard time understanding what actually happens in the play. Are there links for John Andrews and Tom Jones?

The play is a "standard comic drama"... how about "traditional"? I think a footnote here would also reinforce such an assertive statement.

Really, there should be more internal links throughout the article. "Lyme", for example, is a good place to link (I'm not familiar with it, and I assume there are others like me!). "Satire" is another opportunity, and possibly "morality". Don't overdo it, of course, but a few links help build the web.

An irrelevant little observation: I tend to keep my reference style as simple as possible so I might suggested replacing the "p." or "pp." and the "qtd" to a simple comma. But the ref style is consistent here and that's all that matters.

I'm only about halfway through "Themes" but I'll come back to it later today. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plot is kept intentionally short because I don't want to get too in-universe. When going for FAC, I'm going to put up five proposal sections to be reviewed and then cut down based on the five acts of the play. The theme section deals more with what the play is about than the actual play. :) The background always goes first in my pieces as people coming in are normally looking for context (school work and the rest). The "never reviewed" is actually "never revived" - the play was not run again afterward. I added some wikilinks and added some to the plot for right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't finished yet - I'll get back to it soon! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article already looks much better than I last saw it - great work! The links and images really make a difference.

Under themes, who is "Jill Campbell"? How about "Tiffany Potter"? "Albert Rivero"? One quick adjective ("scholar", for example) is enough. You have several instances of this; the reader of the article needs to know why the person is being mentioned so they can judge the source. For all I know, Robert Hume is the top scorer on Space Invaders, so his quote doesn't interest me. Without Wiki-articles, you never know!

In the last paragraph under themes: be careful of using terms that don't have meaning. "Others", for example (other whats?) and, later, "those like" (those whats?).

Under "Sources", see if you can find more links to add to the last paragraph or, at the very least, the full names of the playwrights who are mentioned.

Critical response section is great - I love how you were able to break it up chronologically, and I love the final quote. One question, though: Could you check the Frederick Lawrence quote? It says he "appreciated some of the dialogue", but that doesn't really say much (I'm not sure if that's a compliment or not).

Overall, this article looks great! I'll put the review on hold for now; let me know what you think of my suggestions and observations! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added wikilinks to names that had wikilinks and first names to those that I could find. I changed the Lawrence quote to seem more to the point and I also made some other changes. Many of the scholars used should probably have articles. I will talk with Jayvdb about it, as he seems interested in filling out the notable professor pages. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria. Therefore, I am passing the article - congratulations! Thank you for considering my suggestions; you've definitely answered all of my concerns. Future improvements I would recommend: consider the plot summary, as mentioned earlier, and definitely expand and improve the lead. Well done! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]