Talk:Dramatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.
 


Peer Review[edit]

Hi Andy, Great job working on Dramatism! This page has a thorough review of the principles of the theory. I really like your additions of the "Other Applications Sections." It brings a very real understanding of the theory that I definitely agree was missing in previous versions of this article. I also think the introduction is very strong. It is succinct and clear. A few suggestions for you regarding other things that could be improved on the page. The page has an uncanny similarity to our text book. The sections seem closely mirrored to the sections in the book and the writing is very academic. I would suggest considering how you could rework some of the content so it's less rigid and more consumable to the average reader. Many of the sections are long lists of terms and assumptions. I would recommend reworking these to add more context to each section (ie: explaining what those elements are and why they're important) and making them more fluid instead of rigid lists. In terms of style, I would recommend removing rhetorical questions (see: Metaphor of Drama section) and also superfluous quotation marks. There were a lot of quotation marks around words in the Other Applications Section that didn't seem like they were serving any purpose. Also, I was a little confused by the Notes and References sections. Are they serving the same or different purposes? A cursory look made it seem like all of the References were also in the Notes. I would suggest cleaning up that section and fixing any of the broken citations. One last very picky thing -- all of the in line links on this page are bold but I think on other pages they are not. It certainly does not change the readability or utility of this page but it may just be inconsistent with Wikipedia's style. Overall great work! A few stylistic changes could really make this page stand out even more! Ef527 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review Reply to Ellen

Hi, Ellen. Thanks so much for your thoughtful suggestions! And you are right, the words in the previous version are hard to understand because the theory itself is hard to understand...I'm trying to rewrite them but I worried about it would cause something not accurate due to my misunderstanding. Do you have any suggestions about that? For the Notes and Reference, does your page only have one part of them? Since I saw some of other pages have these two part - note is for the citation, and reference is for the works that contribute to the page, and what confuses me is, I thought only the direct quotation need to be cited, and if you are rewriting, you don't have to cite, but add the source on the reference part instead, right? And it is hard to tell what is original quotation and what is rewriting in the previous version..should I work on it, too? Many thanks.

Andyxjbao (talk)Andyxjbao —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Andy! So I really love your edits to the Wikiepdia page on Dramatism, particularly those that were added within the section on 'Other Applications'. I can tell you spent time thinking about what to add to the information. Looking at the page, however, I came to one conclusion: I am atill a little unclear about Dramatism as a whole, which might be a problem. I think the core of this is that Dramatism as a communications theory is derived from the actual definition of the drama. Although this is alluded to in the 'Metaphor of A Drama' section, I would make it as explicit as possible. What is a drama? What are it's components? While I don't think you need to extrapolate too much, I think a section on the history of the theory and its origins would help provide some context. Additionally after reading, I found the 'Dramatist Pentad' to be a critical element of this page. I would suggest moving it up so that it is not buried under all of the other Key Concepts. Overall, I think the page has some great information, however there needs to be some context around a LOT of the info. It seems like there is an assumption about the reader. I think it would be best to provide a little more detail about each section (for example, under 'Utility' the editors went directly into the statement using the names Dennis Brissett and Charles Edgley. Who are they in the field and why is their researhc any more important than other scholars who have studied the theory?). So far I think you've done an interesting job with additional content, I would now, however, focus on context :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpg23 (talkcontribs) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

Hi,

Please use this section to add your reflection on my 'Dramatism' page. Here are some questions that you can help me answer:

1. What do you think of the page in general? Is it easy to read through, and does the different sections help explaining the theory clearly? 2. I personally do not like the "Other Application Fields" section, the idea of having this section is good but I do not think there are enough information included that makes it necessary. Do you agree with me? If so, please tell me what you suggest to make thins section more beneficial to the page? 3. What other suggestions or comments do you have for me, so I can have a better wikipedia page?

Overall, I am planning to focus on the five elements of drama: act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose. For each element, I am planning to expand on the definition and add examples for each element to help explain it better. Also, I would like to work more on the 'Critiques' section, because I think there is much more to add to this section of the page.

--Nha33 (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review[edit]

This page is well organized. It is also very simple. I think that makes it easy for a non-academic reader to read through, but I also think there is more that can be expanded upon. The pentad is a main part of Dramatism and I think it is organized well on the page, but it is titled wrong on the page. To maintain wiki requirements it should read "Dramatistic pentad" instead of "Dramatistic Pentad." I also think you could flesh out the pentad a bit more. I think this could be done by either expanding the definitions of each point of the pentad or using an example that would help describe each point and how they relate to each other. There is an example in our text book that you could reference if you can't think of one on your own. I found that reading an example of how everything works together really helped to grasp the concept. Also, I think the "Critcs" section should be changed to "Critiques" and that this can be expanded on as well. I think Dramatism has faced more critiques that what is listed on the page. Ajt70 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ai-Ling's peer review[edit]

Hi, Noura! I think your plan will be useful to improve this page by expanding definition and example of five elements of drama which are core components of the Dramatism. My general impression about the page is that its contents are comprehensive but lack depth. For instance, there are many subtitles under the part of utility and application. However, there are only few sentences to explain minor fields. It would be great if you can find sources to provide examples in the theory's application fields and critique.

Besides, I am confused with the subtitles in the "Identification" part. The subtitle like "Can be falsified to result in homophily" is not formal enough. The " homophily" can be concise and clear to represent this paragraph's idea. It would be great if you rewrite the four subtitles under "Identification" to make readers better understand the features and process of identification. You can also make new categories for this part's information or combine them in a more logical way.

Other advise I want to give you is that you can change the position of William Shakespeare's words in the introduction part (may be change it to the bottom right) in order to make the layout of the introduction more beautiful. More pictures in utility or application part will enhance visual effect on your page.

I am looking forward to your final work! If you have any question after editing, it is my pleasure to provide you with my comments or suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw1014 (talkcontribs) 08:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Adri's Peer Review[edit]

Hi-

First, good for you... Dramatism is a HARD theory so well done for choosing it! So overall the page feels a little choppy... it has so many sections and subsections, but they're mostly pretty short. This makes the page feel a little disjointed to me. Perhaps you could look at expanding some sections, and combining others? If you could do that in a natural way, I think it would really help the flow of the page. Also, in the introduction, there are a few long, run on sentences. If you could rephrase those into separate thoughts, I think it would make the page more inviting from the beginning and help with comprehension.

I agree with you about the "Other Application Fields" section. It seems like a very good idea, but it is not quite there on the execution. I think if you chose 1-3 of the sections, and expanded on them, it would really help. That way, it doesn't feel like, "Hm... this is interesting but there's not enough here for me to learn." Pick your favorites and add on to them! That way it's topics you're interested in so it's not as tedious. I also agree that it would be great if you worked on the critiques section. When we did the reading for class, I thought the criticisms were the most interesting part of the theory. It would be very engaging if you expanded that section.

A quick note: under the Key Concepts, they are first listed: identification, the dramatistic pentad, and guilt-redemption, but then they are discussed: dramatistic, identification, and guilt-redemption. You might want to put them in the same order for both (little change). I thought the pentad and the guilt sections were pretty clear. I learned something from both of them. However, the identification section was a little harder for me to understand. This is the subsection where it might be helpful if you combined a few of them? Or perhaps if you could find a different way to put them? I think your other ideas are exactly what the page needs, but if you could spend a little time on the identification, it would help with clarity of theory.

Overall, great job! Keep it up :) Ang59 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC) Ang59 (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review from ML1462[edit]

Hi Noura! I love the structure of Dramatism page and the way you organize it. However, I think some points need to be added since Dramatism is a really complex theory with a wide scope. First of all, I think the very important concept of consubstantiation because the idea of consubstantiality are closely related to the following section "Guilt". As it is said in our textbook, consubstantiality are related to the guilt/redemption cycle because guilt can be assuaged as a result of identification and division. Secondly, I think it would be better to change the title "Guilt" into "Guilt/Redemption Cycle". Guilt itself is just one part of the concept. It is the whole cycle that explains human relations and our motives. Thirdly, personally, I don't like the "Other Application" as you do. My suggestion is that you could move it to a sub-section in the Critique because the wide application of the theory could be seen as its Heurism, which could fall into the category of Critique. Hope my suggestion could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ml1462 (talkcontribs) 04:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)