User talk:BrigitaEhr/sandbox

Some very good insights here, Brigitta – well done.

Something I might ask Shalor to weigh in on is whether sources from the ‘90s on a historical period almost a century prior necessarily need to be updated. In the case of the Abbey, much of the most thorough scholarship can be found in older sources.

The section on “recent years” is quite out of date. It hasn’t discussed any new productions or events for almost a decade.

In terms of your suggestion that the page should contain more information about the founders – it’s my understanding that this information should be on their individual pages rather than reiterated here. Again – I’ll ask Shalor to weigh in here.

I agree that there could certainly be more information about the ideology behind The Abbey’s foundation.

In terms of tone and bias, I agree with you that the tone seems apt, but I still see bias here. Using Yeats’ withdrawal as the historically relevant marker, while ignoring Gregory’s death, is very telling in terms of the way the former tends to be credited with the work of the former.

Nice work analyzing the talk page.

EmerOToole (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi EmerOToole, BrigitaEhr!

When it comes to history, old sources aren't necessarily bad or need to be replaced. The reason for this is essentially that as long as the source was accurate and non-biased to begin with, it should still be usable. As far as more information about the founders go, the article should really only have information about them as it directly pertains to the Abbey. So I'd only add information as to why they chose to found the Abbey Theatre - content that deals with why they participated in the Irish Literary Revival should be in the main article for that topic. Keep in mind though, that there were three groups that participated in the founding so you don't want to focus on one group or person over the others. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  * A lead section that is easy to understand

- Since you haven't edited the lead section I won't evaluate it

  * A clear structure

- Due to the fact that you only have two paragraphs I can't really evaluate the overall structure of the article. For the part you added to the "In 1909 [...]" paragraph I think it might be better to integrate your portion earlier in the paragraph when it discusses Shaw's play, since the way it is now in your sandbox it goes "Shaw's play -> Annie Horniman (and etc) -> back to Shaw's play" . It makes it feel less coherent together as a whole, and even if this is a super quick fix I think it would help improve the reading of the section.

  * Balanced coverage

- I like the fact that you decided to add more about the Plough riots since I'm editing the 'Plough and the Stars' page and I feel that it was a super important event not just for the Abbey but in Irish history so I'm glad you added more about them. :) I feel that it adds a new layer of depth to the Abbey's article since it conveys that they weren't always "politically correct" in their representations and I feel like it makes the whole thing more balanced in terms of showing the good and the bad!

  * Neutral content

- Most of what you wrote comes off as neutral and unbiased. My only issue is with: "If Lady Gregory and W.B Yeats were to show this play in the Abbey Theatre, there would have been a huge outrage from the public that the Abbey Theatre would lose money and potentially the Abbey Theatre would have been shut down" According to who? Was is the Lord Chamberlain that said this? Without stating who said this it sounds like a biased opinion rather than the reason as to why they didn't show Shaw's play. Just adding in an "according to XYZ if Lady Gregory [...]" would fix this.

   * Reliable sources

- The sources you have look great and clearly indicate that research was done to find proper sources and information! There's a problem with your second source in your sandbox though, it doesn't include a link and instead seems to have copied the text from the original Abbey article? This might be a coding thing but I thought it should be pointed out so that it doesn't cause problems when you move this to the actual article!

  * Other suggestions/questions/comments:

- Is the first paragraph going to be integrated into the "early years section" since it already mentions O'Casey and the riots? Or will you be removing the already mentioned O'Casey section and place this somewhere else?

- Maybe saying "living conditions of the average middle class in Dublin" would give a better idea to the reader of what kind of people O'Casey wrote about since it is an important part of his plays?

- I don't know if this has its place in this article or should be left to the 'Plough and the Stars' page but maybe mention who it was that rioted against the play, since it wasn't everyone! On its opening night the play was well received by the more upper class theater goers and it wasn't until the 4th presentation of the play that riots actually broke out

- Maybe say "This lead" rather than leads since you are writing about what has happened in the past rather than us asking that question today? I also think that maybe it should be phrased as a statement rather than a question, since the article should simply inform readers and not make them question something like an essay does. Something like "This lead to questions arising surrounding the issue of re-enacting historical events and the ways it could be done to avoid offending the public." or something along those lines?

- When citing on Wikipedia I don't believe that you need to add page numbers such as: (Kao 70-71). Simply citing it with the superscript link to the reference (^[1]) is what it should be instead. Readers can find the information themselves if they look into the reference text :)

- "The play, "The Shewing -up of Blanco Posnet" by George Bernard Shaw caused was censored" - I think there may be missing some words or the 'caused' shouldn't be there since I'm not quite sure I understand what you tried to say here.

- "Before the plays were performed, the script had to be approved by Lord Chamberlain and he had the power to approve the play or to refuse it" - the second part seems redundant to me, if he had to approve them I feel like it's a given that he had the power to approve or reject them.

- "This play had religious themes but it was not a critique on religion but yet a critique on politics" I'm a little unsure of the wording of this statement, or maybe it's the way it's phrased? Maybe something like "Although this play had religious themes and may have appeared to be a critique of religion it was actually a critique on politics" or something similar?

- The overall writing was straight to the point, clear with very few grammatical mistake. It explains everything well and in simple terms so that anyone reading this will understand.

- I hadn't mentioned in my article that the theater goers were also mad at the depiction of "Irish as being thieves and murderers", so I will probably use that (and the reference you used since I hadn't seen that one!) in my own article so thank you for that! :)

- Everything you added seems important and fits well with what is already there. Everything that you added is relevant to the Abbey Theater and definitely increases the depth of knowledge presented on the page such that readers will get a much more thorough understanding of the history of the theater as well as how the people in charge and their decisions affected what was staged.

Overall I think this is a great start to improving the article and will strengthen what is already there. Keep up the good work!

PS. Sorry if it feels like I wrote a lot! I just wanted to make sure I explained exactly what I meant for everything, even if it is for minor things or for good things :)

Mels93 (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BrigitaEhr:,

In addition to @Mels93:'s excellent and comprehensive feedback, I would like to urge caution in introducing Yeats, O'Casey and Toibin's reponses to 1916 at the same time. These are plays from different eras, and introducing them in the way you propose damages the chronology of the article.

I also advise you to think about balance of material, particularly in relation to the article's extant focus on Blanco Posnet and your proposed addition of focused material on The Plough and the Stars. Why are these productions privileged in the history above all others. And does the article's current focus only on productions that caused protests during the early years section accurately represent the history of the theatre?

Very much looking forward to seeing how this develops EmerOToole (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BrigitaEhr:

Just a note to remind you to start working the feedback above into the material on your sandbox. Remember that this is a graded part of the assignment. Please finish it by the end of the week, as it is significantly overdue. Failure to do so will affect your grade. EmerOToole (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mels93:

Thank you for your feedback. As for your question on whether or not to include more about the riots that happened due to the presentation of "The Plough and the Stars," I would leave that for the wikipedia page that is specifically on this piece, since the Abbey Theatre page describes generally what happened to the Abbey Theatre for a wider span of years. I changed the bits that you suggested. I'm not sure how to properly cite the Abbey Theatre wikipedia page, though.

Hi Brigita,

I am going to advice against moving any of the material from your first paragraph to Wikipedia, as it belongs on a page for Plough and the Stars and not on The Abbey Theatre page.

As for the additions to the paragraph on Shaw, you need to restructure the paragraph so that you are not doubling back to Blanco Posnet after the material on Horniman's departure. I think there's still a good deal of work to do here before you get this paragraph right, so please tackle this soon and then tag me so that I can review it before you move it to the site.

You might also like to consider fixing some of the broken links you identified during your evaluation exercise.

Looking forward to seeing your additions! EmerOToole (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Emer,

I have done what I could with the Wikipedia assignment. Please tell me if it is alright to move my content onto the two separate Wikipedia entries, that being the Abbey Theatre entry and The Shewing-Up of Blanco Posnet entry. Thank you. @EmerOToole:

Hi @BrigitaEhr:

Please do go ahead and move the two excellent references you have found to The Abbey page.

I am going to advise against moving the material on Blanco Posnet, as I am not sure you are representing the situation quite accurately. I believe that the Lord Chamberlain's refusal was for the planned London production, not for the production at The Abbey, as, to the best of my understanding, the Lord Chamberlain's censorship authority did not apply to Ireland, which was what enabled the Abbey to produce the play when it had been banned in England in the first place. Because you have not provided a clear reference for your information, I cannot check your source.

Even without moving this material, I will be able to grade you on your research, analyses drafts and contributions.

EmerOToole (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]