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.
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.
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.
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 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)