Talk:Assemblywomen
 | Assemblywomen received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Nice job on the article. It is clear and comes from a neutral point of view. The plot, with the box by its side listing the characters, is a great format. The historical background section does a very nice job of concisely explaining the background in an understandable way. I particularly enjoyed the longest word information, which is a fun and exciting piece of information. Well done! Joshuachasegold (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackpmattern. Peer reviewers: Joshuachasegold, DaniellaBenavides.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
sexism and misogyny edit
It's time we recognize the blatant disgusting sexism that this article promotes. I've added the obvious distinction that this play is disgustingly misogynistic. I assume there won't be any issues as wikipedia is a known progressive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.165.143 (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
That's news to me. When did we get progressive? Dimadick (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Common views of women edit
"The play portrays a common view of women at the time."
How do we know this? We know very little about the "common view[s] of women" in Athenian society. The statement is vague and unsubstantiated. Dwstultz (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- Although I did not write this myself, I believe it to be more or less correct. See for example: Sommerstein (2007) 149n119-120, 158n215-228, 159n224, 159n225, 160n236, 160n238, cf. 150n132. I could go on, but this should suffice. I'm putting it in again and expanding a little based on this source. Bahnheckl (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Analysis edit
One the analysis section some views are stated as incorrect, without further references to the writer of the view, without the rest of the article suggesting this direction. Just to note that an earlier version of the article, now deleted, referenced writers elaborating on the opposite view. Doesn't the present form suggest a clear POV editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.73.108 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
interesting threads edit
"All the interesting threads of the play, unfortunately, go nowhere, and the play ends with a party scene that comes across as something of a non-sequitur."
- the way this line is worded, especially using the word "unfortunately", makes it sound pretty POV. Although it may have some interesting ideas, it's main purpose is still comedy, not political treatise. So containing a non-sequitur would be totally appropriate. - Ravenous 18:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed the "party scene" is effectively an epilogue, and an invitation to the audience to come and feast, which I presume was part of the entertainment when the play was first performed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
- Indeed the "party scene" is effectively an epilogue, and an invitation to the audience to come and feast, which I presume was part of the entertainment when the play was first performed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC).
It is comedy on politics, its main theme is a critique of still thriving ideas on the organizing of society. So talking on the work and not talking on the ideas it comments is rather difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.58.252 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)