Wikipedia:Peer review/The School for Scandal/archive1

The School for Scandal

I've listed this article for peer review because I have extensively revised, rewritten, and supplemented this pre-existing article. The "Appraisal" section is entirely new, and so is nearly all of the "Revisions and variant versions" section.

Thanks,

MollyTheCat 03:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

Well, before you undertook this revision, the article only had a plot summary, so way to go! However, I think that studying some GA and FA drama articles might guide you in your development of the article (e.g. The Country Wife, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet). I noticed that, so far, your sources have all come from the internet. With a play like The School for Scandal, you are going to have to invest in serious library time, as the best scholarship on Sheridan's plays is not available on the internet. I would start with something like The Cambridge Companion to British Theatre, 1730-1830 to get a solid background. It will also have a bibliography that will guide you to other books and articles on Sheridan's works. We want to be sure that wikipedia's articles are based on the best scholarship available.

This research will also help you conceptualize more sections, such as "Themes" and "Style". There is already some material in the article that gestures towards this, but it is not arranged to help the reader find it. Again, looking at articles that are more developed and doing more research will help you structure these sections. I would also suggest cutting down on the plot summary. We want the article to primarily be a description of the interpretations of the play rather than a plot summary. Plot summaries don't really make for interesting reading, anyway.

I hope these suggestions help. Let me know if you have any questions about them. Awadewit | talk 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Awadewit. I'll have to look for this book when it is published. (When I clicked on the link, it said "Not yet published - available from December 2007." I know that publishers tend to roll out things on different timeframes in different regions, so it appears to be not yet available where I am.) Again, thanks. --MollyTheCat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is available. Academic books do not have different "roll out" schedules. There simply aren't enough buyers to necessitate such a thing. :) Awadewit | talk 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this as well.--MollyTheCat (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

First, good job on the work you have already done. The below will seem like criticism, but that's merely because the good parts leave nothing wanting. So please don't let these points disappoint...

• Prologue - forgive me if this is a silly comment, but is this usually performed? In other words, in performances of the play, does someone normally get up on stage and read the praise? It seems to be addressed to the audience...
• appears to confer with Lady Sneerwell - rephrase "appears", otherwise I was thinking "he only appears to confer with her, but actually they are..."
• In general, you seem to have broken down the play in a very dry "stage directions" style, which is rather hard for this humble usually-prose-reading mouse to comprehend. I recommend rephrasing aiming at a reader, rather than giving all the "Act 2 (gezundheit); Scene 2 (and raised 1); enters; appears; exeunt omnes; exit stage left bearing bowl of fruit balanced on tip of nose" stuff. For example, you write "Mrs. Candour enters, and soon after Sir Benjamin and Crabtree, bringing a good deal of gossip with them. News of the imminent return of the Surface brothers' rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies is discussed, as well as Charles's currently dire financial situation." - instead I recommend something like - "They worry about Charles's dire financial situation, and whether the imminent return of his rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies will relieve it." as that is the important point, not when who enters in what scene, surely. You may also want to describe even more of the apparently important points - why is Charles's financial situation so dire?
• "ruined by [her] extravagance."; "the fashion," - are these very short quotes really necessary? Surely we can write that Peter thinks he will be ruined by his wife's extravagant spending, the exact words don't seem important enough to copy exactly, unless they became a catchphrase, or are often cited exactly or something.
• Instead, how about including some quotes demonstrating Sheridan's wit? The reviewers go on about how witty the lines given to the characters are, but we don't have a single example. Surely there are some signature lines that immediately identify the play to those who know about it, we should cite a few of those. For example: "To be or not to be, that is the question", or "Wherefore art thou Romeo?"
• Sir Peter praises Joseph's high morals, but Sir Oliver suspects that he may be a hypocrite, and decides to give the libertine and spendthrift Charles a chance - who may be a hypocrite? Peter, Joseph, or even Charles?
• Lady Sneerwell confides to her servant Snake her plan to undermine Charles Surface's attempts to woo Sir Peter Teazle's ward Maria (with help from Charles' older brother Joseph) - Joseph is helping Charles, or Sneerwell? Again, recommend rephrasing with less stage directions style; we, the readers, care more about what happens, than how it is described to us. "Lady Sneerwell plans to undermine..."
• Charles, entertaining his raucous dinner guests, raises a toast to Maria. - why is this particularly important now? It's established he loves her at the top of the plot. I apologize, but I find the whole plot section hard to read, there are so many minor events that seem to be unconnected, it's rather confusing. Can the less important ones be left out?
• In comparing editions of the play, one will find several relatively minor textual differences. - "One" is jarring here. How about: "There are several relatively minor textual differences between editions..."?
• Because, as one recent editor has put it, "The School for Scandal is the most intractable problem Sheridan set his editors,"[7] editions of this play can vary considerably. - Whoah! Just a few sentences ago it said the differences were minor!
• It may be significant that in Johann Zoffany's portrait of Robert Baddeley as Moses, we find that - again, apologies for being so dense, but I don't understand why it is significant. And even if it is, how does some portraitist's mistaken impression of the play reflect on the play? If I draw a picture of George Bush with a cucumber up his nose, surely that reflects more on me than on Bush. Please explain.
• But in the hands of a talented director and cast, the play still offers considerable pleasure." - just remove. That's a sentence that can be given about any merely good play, and this is apparently a great play, so it can be assumed.
• Actors Ada Dyas - Irish actress as Lady Teazle - er - what? Surely she wasn't the only one to ever play Teazle. Was she the first one? If so, say so... and say also why that was particularly important. I personally don't recall that the first person to play Macbeth was that important. The John Gielgud line in the same section is much better at explaining this. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)