Review

[vr8hub]

• [x] We don't repeat the sections of the metadata when there are multiple sources, the sections just contain the combined information from all the sources. That is, all of the sources are together (I typically put all of the transcriptions together followed by all of the scans), all of the transcribers together, etc., just like in any other production. Using comments as you've done is perfect for showing which plays are where on the transcriptions and/or scans, but you would include all the plays in the comments for a given source.
• [x] The places where you've used divs should instead be their own sections. There probably won't be a good epub:type to use (at least for the ones I saw), so you can leave that empty. You can just use -1, -2, etc. for the id's. (Except for the How He Lied… postscript; that should probably be -postscript, with the main part -body). You can look at almost any of our short story collections for examples; I know both O Henry and Maupassant have stories with multiple (sub)sections in them.
• [x] The sources should not have the trailing slashes.
• [ ] The rest of the poem/verse/song CSS needs to be added.
• [x] As does the epigraph cite CSS.
• [x] We use <strong> for especially strong emphasis (i.e. shouting), <b> when we just need unsemantic formatting (see SEMoS 8.3.3). So, the "Postscript", the placards in O'Flaherty, and the line at the end of the Annajanska preface should be the latter, not the former.
• [x] The z3998:postscript semantic is specifically for letters, not a generic postscript, so that semantic should not be used except on an actual letter.
• [x] Although I didn't see a scan source for Great Catherine (mentioned on the list), I found one on Hathi, and it has the expected (to me) comma in several places where the transcription has a colon, e.g. "Patiomkin, how dare you!", and just after that, "On his knees, tearfully" in the stage directions. Colons don't really make sense there, so I think a review of at least the colons against the scan would be a good idea.
• [x] We capitalize Negro. (Editorial)
• [x] I found an instance of stage direction not being tagged: The Music Cure, "… settles himself to sleep with his face …" I used a regex to look for other instances (a <td/> followed by a plain <td> that wasn't followed by a newline) and it didn't return anything else, so I think that's the only one.
• [x] There are several instances of unsemanticated italics (<i>), some that should be emphasis (<em>), and some that shouldn't be italics at all (e.g. magnum opus, in camera).
• [x] This one doesn't need any changes this time, just a hint for the future. Gathering all of the standard CSS at the beginning, followed by all of the custom CSS, makes it easier to review. Also, having a separate section for the dramatis personae and "together" CSS is fine, since they're separate in the manual as well, but splitting the standard drama CSS into two sections, and then putting something else between those sections makes it more difficult for a reviewer to determine that all of the needed CSS is present. :) There's no need to split it.
• [x] Do you have reason to think Patiomkin will be by a screen reader? Otherwise it doesn't need the language since it's a proper name.
• [x] I'm not sure of the validity of including the boxing essay here, but I'll leave that for Alex.

(I just happened to run across these while I was looking at/for other things.)

• [x] There is an extraneous space before the period in the last sentence of The Music Cure's preface.
• [x] There is also an extraneous period after "couch" in the same play's stage directions (… on the couch., …)
• [x] And an extraneous space in "under- secretary…"
• [x] At the end of How He Lied…, they reference a couple of names for the proposed volume of poems. I would think those should have book semantics? (We use them even for made-up books.)
• [x] The "shall" in "You shall have it." in Passion, Poison… is not italicized in the scans.
• [x] The em-dashes in "No—n—no" a little later in the same play are just hyphens in the scans (probably should be no-break hyphens).
• [x] We use unsemanticated italics for sounds (SEMoS 8.2.6); I don't know why we wouldn't do the same for plays. See, e.g., Tsst! in The Interlude…

We're now veering off into play structure, which is not my forte. However, in most of the cases below I've looked through several other of our plays to see how things are done. (Some of it's also logical to me.) So, it might be ignorance, but it's at least informed ignorance. :)

• [ ] There are multiple instances where stage directions are mixed in with scene information. For example, in The Admirable Bashville, there's "A glade in Wilstoken Park," which is scene info, followed by "Enter Lydia," which is stage direction, and therefore should be in the table. There are multiple instances in AB, but several in other plays as well.
• [x] In our other plays with multiple scene paragraphs, they are indented normally (first unindented, remaining indented), so I'm not sure of the need for the CSS to unendent them all. (I would also expect that to be part of our standard drama CSS if we wanted that to happen.)
• [x] I'm not sure about the footers, for multiple reasons. First, we don't appear to keep "first performed" information in our plays, even for those that had that information available. (A search yields no hits; and I know at least one of them had it because I reviewed it.) Second, even if we did keep them, I'm not sure they qualify semantically as footers. If you feel strongly about keeping them, I'll ask Alex about it on the list and I'll ask about the footers at the same time.
• [x] In Bashville, Cashel has an aside immediately followed by something aloud. (… It wrings my heart to see …) The Aside directions are standalone, while the Aloud is not. Why would they be different? There's no visible difference in the scans.
• [x] In instances where there are stage directions for a "together" group, shouldn't they be inline with the text as they are in the scans, rather than standalone? E.g., in Passion, Poison…, when Magnesia/Fitz/Phyllis say "Let him sleep," the directions are standalone above them, rather then inline, i.e. "(Whispering together.) Let him sleep." The latter seems more in line with the scans, and makes more sense to me (otherwise, we don't know who is "whispering together"). That isn't the only instance, just the only example I'm listing here.
• [x] Also in Passion…, when the landlord makes his entrance, the persona tag is just on Landlord (… entrance of the LANDLORD…), while the persona on all of his speaking parts is "THE LANDLORD". Wouldn't that mean the "the" in the stage directions should be included in the tag? (I don't know much about how the personas work, and there's no way to efficient look at other instances, so I'll trust your judgment either way.)

[chapkachapka]

Working through these, but a few preliminary issues:

1) I added the language tag to "Patiomkin" based on advice from Emma on the project thread. I don't feel strongly either way but she recommended it based on issues with Slavic names generally.

2) The "shall" you specify isn't italicised in the source images because Shaw didn't use italics for emphasis, he used gesperrt (spaced-out letters) emphasis instead. This is easy to miss if you're not looking for it, especially in justified text where the word spacing is small. That specific one is definitely gesperrt in the original.

3) For the punctuation in Great Catherine: I've added that missing source link, and they are definitely colons. Shaw was...idiosyncratic about things like spelling and punctuation, and they were often "normalised" by other publishers. In this case Shaw's original standalone publication and the original UK volume publication by Constable & Co. (which I follow here) both use the colons; you were likely looking at the American reprint from Brentanto's, which has some changes that I'm confident were made by the American editor and not Shaw. I definitely reviewed every colon at least once at the proofing stage because of this.

[chapkachapka]

4. For the "together" issue: I set them up that way for situations like this, where the bracket is covering several speakers and lines:

https://archive.org/details/androcleslionove00shawuoft/page/88/mode/2up?q=exclaiming

In those cases, you can tell which lines are "together" because the tag adds a line connecting them. I agree that in this case it doesn't make sense to do it that way, so I've fixed it, but I wanted to clarify since I'm leaving the others as is.

5. As for the personas, standard practice both here and generally is not to apply formatting to the articles--here's an example from one of our Shakespeare editions, "enter the SOOTHSAYER."

https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/william-shakespeare/julius-caesar/text/act-2#scene-2-4

[vr8hub]

Yep, no problem on all that. (As an aside, we won't argue about the punctuation since you have a scan that includes it, but as Alex has mentioned on-list a couple of times, you're still assigning way too much value to the author. :) The printing decisions were made by an editor and a publisher. The British ones of a particular edition used colons (which, IMO, is odd) and the American ones of a particular edition used commas (which, IMO, is less odd :)). We look for the latest edition possible when we look for scans for the precise reason of getting the most corrections, and the most "modern" spelling and punctuation practices, etc. What Mr. Fielding thought of commas in the 1700's is irrelevant to us today. But, again, no problem because the scans you're using have the colons.)

For the "together" I see what you're talking about, but note there are other instances exactly like the example I gave you.

[chapkachapka]

6. Fixed the italics, but left "in camera" because lint considers it confusible.

7. For the Cashel Byron issue--I agree it's strange-looking; this has to do with SE standards for verse drama, which make a distinction between a stage direction in the middle of a line and one "attached to a persona." Search for "attached" in the play formatting document and you'll find the rule: https://standardebooks.org/contribute/how-tos/how-to-conquer-complex-drama-formatting

In this case you can tell the original typesetter considered the direction "attached to the persona" because there's no period between them. I do 100% agree it looks odd in this line, but I'm not sure of the best way of fixing it that doesn't also look inconsistent with other stage directions.

[vr8hub]

OK, no problem on either (I should have thought of the in camera issue; we do that for any non-English phrase that begins with an English word). The Aside/Aloud was more of a question than anything, it just looked odd to me, but, as mentioned many times, drama is not my thing. :)

[chapkachapka]

I think there are only two things left to address:

1. I added back the missing poetry formatting, except for the p + p formatting--because there are no "stanzas" in this project, lint gave a warning when I tried to put that one in.

2. I've moved the initial stage directions into the table in Bashville, and made a few edits in the other plays. However, in many of the plays that distinction isn't as clear; because there wasn't any distinction on the page, Shaw tended to write long descriptive paragraphs incorporating both. The first scene of Great Catherine is a good example, where the actual description ("there is a screen behind the ottoman") comes after what could otherwise be character business. Then there are plays like Augustus Does His Bit, where I could make it a separate stage direction but only by splitting the paragraph in the middle. For now I've moved the instances where there was a clear division and left the others--let me know if you want me to be more aggressive about it.

[vr8hub]

I don’t have access to GitHub at the moment, so hopefully their email access works. :) Yes, by “rest” I mean “rest applicable.” No problem, if you’ve taken care of the obvious ones the muddled ones will have to stay muddled. :)I’m AFK for a couple of days, I’ll review the updates when I get settled; probably Wednesday.

[vr8hub]

Just a few niggles left.

• [x] You got the first "Tsst" but not the second one in the same sentence.
• [x] There's another "together" in Passion, Poison… (For our sakes, Adolphus, perservere.) that has the same stage direction issue as the other example I gave you, i.e. they're both saying the same line, so the stage direction doesn't need to be separate.
• [x] I'm not sure subchapter is a good epub:type for the preface sub-sections, since the parent sections aren't chapters, but I'm not sure they're not, either, so I'll leave that with Alex.
• [x] The second ol in the Summary of Shaw's statement in the preface to The Showing Up of Blanco… is in fact a sublist of the last point, which ends "…by the following provisions:". So that ol should be within the last li, i.e.

  <li>
    <p>… by the following provisions:</p>
    <ol>
      <li>
        <p>The public prosecutor…
      </li>
      …
   </ol>
  </li>

• [x] Also, the list type can be specified in CSS, list-style-type: upper-alpha;. (In general, we [Alex] prefer CSS to text markup when possible.)
• [x] (And can I say that's some preface! )
• [x] In Passion, Poison…, wouldn't "The cuckoo clock strikes sixteen." at the end of the scene be stage directions? No? Pardon my ignorance. :)
• [x] Ditto "An elderly CLERK … shuffles in." in Augustus Does His Bit?

[chapkachapka]

All set. My comments:

1. In the project thread, Alex first suggested doing the list styles in markup, and when you pointed out it could be done in CSS he agreed but said it couldn't hurt to leave it in the markup as well, so I did it in both. (The CSS is in local.css under the Blanco Posnet subhed).

2. I used "subchapter" for this and my previous Shaw play because I looked at some other Shaw in the corpus and that's what was used for the chapter headings there. So it may not be perfect, but at least it's consistent. :)

3. I changed the cuckoo clock direction as well as the second paragraph of the O'Flaherty scene description, "A loud yawn is heard..." from Great Catherine scene 2 and three short paragraphs at the beginning of The Interlude.... (I'd only done entrances in the first pass but these seemed as "stage directiony" as the cuckoo clock.)

4. For "An elderly clerk," I left it because it was all part of one paragraph. I also left the entrances to Great Catherine scene 3 and to The Fascinating Foundling and The Glimpse of Reality as part of the paragraph by the same reasoning. I can split the end of these paragraphs out into stage directions if you think it's necessary; would that be an editorial change for adding in the paragraph break?

[vr8hub]

Hah! I didn't remember it was this that conversation was about. Well, it didn't make sense to me then to have both, and it doesn't make sense to me now. There is zero reason for markup if the CSS is handling it. Don't worry about it; I'll mention it to him when I give it to him. I really don't want an example in the corpus of belts and suspenders when we only need the latter, but he's the boss, so he gets to decide.

OK, to be clear I don't have strong feelings about any of this because I don't know enough to have strong feelings. :) With that, my logic would be: if the (what seem to be) stage directions are mixed in with scene description and can't be extricated, then they would stay. But, in these cases where they're at the end of everything but just not in their own paragraph, that doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough reason not to label them as what they are (if in fact you agree that's what they are).

Since it's just formatting, not changing the text, I wouldn't consider it as editorial, but they should be in their own commits, and if someone disagrees it's easy to change.

[chapkachapka]

All set then, let me know if you see anything else. Between this and the poetry I'm proofing now, I'm about ready for a nice simple novel!

[vr8hub]

No kidding! I do not have the fortitude for poetry/drama, I really do admire those of you who produce it.