Talk:Tamara Rojo

Final Peer Review

This is a very interesting article in a sense it is about a topic/person that I don't know about. It is also very well-written, and it seems like a very professional submission. There are only a few additional things that I feel should be included/edited in this webpage. Concerning your quotes, I feel that there is a major lack in sources/references in this. For example, in the first section you quote her speaking of talking in English, but you haven't placed any link as to where that quote had come from ( i.e. [1] ). Another suggestion that I have is concerning the organization with your "Performances" and "Awards" sections. In the performance section, if you could, I would add the dates/years of each specific performance. For your awards section, it may be more user friendly if you added: "what she won the award for", "who gave her the award", etc. (For example, See Blink-182's awards). All in all this is a very well put together article, but I feel once you add/change these factors it will be near perfect. JKinzbach (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 07:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

comment about my edits 19 Dec 2007

I have removed some information about Tamara Rojo in this page which seem to be incorrect:

1. She is definitely not the first Spaniard to be a member of the Royal Ballet. For example, both Laura Morera (joined 1995) and Zenaida Yanowsky (joined 1994), joined RB earlier and are Spanish.

2. Changed prima ballerina in relation to ENB and RB to Principal Dancer -- this is the official rank of both companies.

3. Not sure what "youngest artist in the history of ballet to become prima ballerina" means, and the link to the cha2005 webpage is blank -- removed both.

4. Joining RB "at the invitation of Sir Anthony Dowel" may be inaccurate -- judging from articles about her, e.g. the http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_02/apr02/interview_rojo.htm article referenced by the page, she initiated contact with RB about joining them.

--Kish Shen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.103.102.178 (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

The prose in this article is very professional and informational (as it should be) but at the same time I was very engaged and intrigued while reading it. You did a very nice job in captivating me in the synthesization of Tamara's life. And I didn't even notice any grammatical errors. Very well done.

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

This article seems very comprehensive and certainly doesn't neglect any major facts or details about Tamara's life. It also doesn't seem to go too deeply into little details that aren't vital to Tamara's story so, well done there. However, I feel that it would be beneficial for the reader to know at least a little information about each of the awards in your list of awards. Maybe having a little snippet of a sentence for each award saying who/what organization gave her the award, the significance of the award, or why/how she was chosen for the award etc. So maybe just like one or two sentences giving a little background on each award I think would be beneficial to the reader.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

I would say the main (and basically the only) weakness of this page is that there seems to be only one source. And you only used the one reference in-line twice. And on top of that, the one sited reference links out to a dead informationless page. So you may want to consider finding (if you haven't already) additional sources and citing them more frequently throughout the page. And also fix what ever is wrong with the link to the source you already have. Otherwise, I would imagine the wikipedia admins might take down the page due to lack of sources. On the plus side, you have tons and tons of external links which is great. Maybe you could use some of them as your cited sources.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

There isn't much to say here except that you did a great job in keeping the text informative and historically matter-of-fact rather than persuasive and biased.

Formatted appropriately: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

The over format/outline looks very professional and pretty well thought out. So far it looks like the wikipedia admins like the way you laid out her list of ballets performed which is impressive. It's usually pretty hard to please them when it comes to extensive lists like that. One of the only things I can think of pertaining to the outline is you could (if you want to) put Major Injuries as a sub-category to Career. If you want to do that just put 3 "=" symbols instead of 2 on both sides of the heading of Major Injuries. But other than that, the format seems to comply with wikipedia style guidelines and seems to be in a very logical, fluid arrangement. All in all, I know that this page will turn out to be an exceptionally professional page and am truly impressed with it already. I'm excited to see the finished product! Great job! Drsulliv (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Written: I like how everything is divided up so well. Starting with biographical information to awards near the end. It looks very professional and well organized. One thing that I was not too keen of was the way that the page introduces itself. The first paragraph of any Wikipedia page should provide a very quick summary of this person’s work and life. When I look at a Wiki page for a quick search of Tamera, things like what are the major awards she has won and what are her most famous performances would be included. Overall everything looks excellent.

Comprehensive: The entire page is easily understandable and easy to follow. It is the order of the information that is a little strange. In the first introductory paragraph quite a bit of biographical information is expressed and in the next section, “biography” it continues on. It is like part of the biography paragraph is in the introductory paragraph. Also looking near the end of the page there is an extensive list of awards that she has won. Instead of listing them, maybe make it a whole section and explain what each award is and maybe for what performance she won it for.

Well Researched: There is quite a bit of viable information. Looking under references there is only one. Maybe there was only one reference that was used but if there are more there needs to be listed in the page for copyrighting purposes. In the entire page there are only 2 internal citations. I believe that there can be a little more added to this give credit to the information providers for the wiki page.

Neutral: All the information that is provided is very neutral. It explains only facts and historical events in this dancer’s life.

Formatted Appropriately: This page is very thought out. I like how it is organized and the appearance is great, pictures, lists etc. The list of the ballet performances/roles is very nice and brings extra to the page that makes it look more professional. Like before having a category for awards is great just expand in each award like that it is and what performances that she was in won that specific award. Also I know that injuries are a big deal in the dance world but I do not think it needs its own category. It is all a part of her career so putting it under that would make this page almost perfect. Once again with the references, there is minimal so adding more of them with internal citations would be great. Overall really great page, informal and organized. (Chaniel Nelson (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC))

Well-written: I believe the article was written in a professional manner with no noticeable grammatical errors. I also feel the article is well organized and well structured, starting with the essential biographical information and then transitioning to her career.

Comprehensive: This page is very comprehensive. I was able to read the article, stay engaged, and retain the information that I read without any lapse of memory. This shows that the article was written in a reader-friendly fashion. Personally, I like how the introductory paragraph mentions both biographical and career orientated information. It allows the reader to gain an interest in the topic before he or she actually digs into all of the details. Well done!

Well-researched: Although it appears you have all of the necessary information to create a substance-filled page on Tamara Rojo, this section could use a little more work. There is only one mentioned reference, and although it is not necessary to have more, additional references bring credibility to your article. I am sure that this will be resolved by the final version, but just a heads up!

Neutral: The article appears to remain neutral throughout its entirety. I see no biases within the context, so great job on remaining informative as opposed to opinionated.

Formatted appropriately: As stated before, the page is organized/ structured correctly. I am impressed by the table you have presented. Anytime someone can incorporate a table within their article, it tends to grab the reader's attention to the content within it. With the awards being mentioned in the table, readers are quickly able to recognize that Tamara Rojo is professional, for the table exemplifies her success in her career. Usually, I do not see "Injuries" as a category under a professional's Wiki page unless an extensive series of injuries caused her to stop dancing. However, any additional information in which one can expand on and provide to readers is certainly appreciated. Maybe you could tie it into her "Career" section somewhere? Just a suggestion.

Overall, great work thus far. I am excited to see the final version!! MichaelHornsby (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review:

Overall, I think this is a great article. However, I do think several things can be done in order to polish it. Many other articles list a brief numerology biography under the main page picture: such as age (not just year born) with a date if possible, profession, and years active. I think this would be a good addition to make it more uniform with other entries. I also noticed that under the Biographical and Career sections, there were no references cited. It might be a good idea to cite this information so that readers might be able to see references for further research. I look forward to seeing the finished entry!Jtcarc (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)jtcarcJtcarc (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review:

I think this page is very well done and very thorough. Just a few things to think about.

Writing: At times the writing seems slightly less than professional. "Tamara was born in Montreal, Canada to Spanish parents who moved back to Spain when she was four months old." I applaud the thoroughness, but this kind of writing seems more like it belongs in a biography rather than Wiki. I think the page could be improved if the writing was tweeked a bit to give it more of a factual style.

Comprehensiveness: Clearly you guys did your homework. I know everything I want to know about Tamara Rojo, and then some. A lot of dancing and ballet groups were mentioned throughout the page. Maybe one thing to add would be stating the significance of being a part of the "Royal Ballet", for instance. I know that's what links are for, but you have a great deal of links and readers won't want to visit them all.

Research: Good stuff

Neutrality: Fairly neutral. Nothing negative about Tamara is noted on, but maybe thats just her story

Format: Classic Wiki format, nice picture. Maybe another picture next to the performance list would be good. Mmbero122 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Cwfagan

Well Written: As a previous reviewer mentioned, this article is much like a biography. I think that this is working well. Wikipedia seems to be impressed with your article as it fits into areas they are looking to expand. I found this article to be very well written and informative. I like that you used a table and a list for her roles and awards. This would be too overwhelming in prose. The only thing you might consider changing is splitting sections into smaller paragraphs, though this is not necessary. Very professional, good job!

Comprehensive: Very comprehensive, with information about her childhood, education, roles, and awards. I feel like I got a good sense of her life. You do an excellent job of writing this as a professional article.

Well Researched: While you seem to have done extensive research, you are lacking citations in the references section. I think it is very important for you to expand your references as soon as possible. There's information out there on her and you should provide this information to researchers. Maybe you can incorporate some of your links as references. Also, note the broken link on the one reference you provide.

Formatted Appropriately: Well done! The formatting looks great. I especially like the table and list.

Neutral: There is no bias in this article unless there is negative information you have left out.

Carolyn Fagan 06:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwfagan (talk • contribs)