211:
186:
112:
50:
102:
81:
21:
349:"These are the questions the competitor and the judge should ask themselves before performing an Oration, to either an audience, or especially yourself. The key to gain the audience's attention isn't through your topic, it's through your passion. For instance, your topic could be that people today are lazy, but instead of changing it, they are accepting it."
271:
It seems too informal, especially in the last section. I don't have enough experience to fix it well, but maybe someone with more knowledge about the topic could fix the informality. Also, as far as I know, there has been no nationwide shift to oratory being humor only. I see mainly serious oratorys
299:
I suggest changing "Intro Hooker" to "Introduction," which is a less casual term. Also, consider removing the entire "Progress" section because 1) it reads like advice, and not like a descriptive encyclopedia entry, and 2) it simply isn't an accurate description of the state of
Original Oratory.
356:
I would also argue that the article attempts to compress the
Original Oratory event into an overly generic definition. There are regional variations on the speech format and delivery style that are conspicuously lacking from the article. For instance, Northern California oratories tend to possess
345:
I agree with previous posters in that the overall article is too informal. Granted, speech and debate isn't exactly a subject one would find in an encyclopedia or dictionary; it's not a formally defined activity in itself. I would compare it to the hip hop culture in that both have unwritten but
357:
more empirical and analytical data substantiating arguments made, and their delivery style is polished, clean, and formal. Meanwhile, Southern
California oratories focus more on anecdotal stories for their pieces of evidence, and their delivery style is more colloquial and emotional.
374:
The articles appears to be constructed in a manner that resembles a guide or a "how-to" rather than an encyclopedia. This is especially apparent in the sections "Steps of an
Oration" and "An Example of Speech Construction." I suggest a minor rewrite.
346:"established" rules and codes of conduct that aren't necessarily fodder for a rigid encyclopedic definition. Nevertheless, there are still areas requiring improvement, such as this excerpt from the article's introduction:
352:
In this case, the writer's overuse of the second tense renders the article far too colloquial. There are also numerous grammatical inaccuracies that detract from the piece's legitimacy and rhetorical effectiveness.
282:
It also seems the last section directly contradicts the last section in regards to the content of an OO. I too have not seen a shift toward only humourous
Oratories. I've added a {{cleanup}} tag to the article
329:
Sorry, forgot to sign. I fixed some of the grammar, but I still see the main problem in this section to be a particularly insipid example (individuality) used throughout, and a somewhat informal approach.
31:
394:
I revised some of the style used in this article, but also removed the latter half of the article as it was instructional and did not reference the event in any form. —
168:
428:
158:
296:
I have seen many oratories as i have been in speech for two years now and not all of them have been dramatic. Most of them in fact have been inspiring.
433:
423:
134:
313:
I'm a speech coach, and the last section, while not great, is ONE interesting approach to creating a speech. I'd keep it, but change its heading.
125:
86:
331:
320:
376:
217:
191:
61:
405:
27:
67:
49:
335:
324:
380:
316:
222:
196:
301:
133:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
365:
20:
310:
I suggest that this be split into persuasive and informative OO. Two clearly different categories.
273:
361:
117:
401:
300:
Structural expectations (such as "problem/cause/solutions") tend to be regional trends.
417:
360:
All this I have learned from word of mouth, from my prior speech and debate career.
395:
130:
210:
185:
111:
284:
107:
409:
384:
369:
339:
304:
287:
276:
101:
80:
43:
15:
129:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
220:, a project which is currently considered to be
8:
47:
180:
75:
182:
143:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Linguistics
77:
7:
232:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Debating
216:This article is within the scope of
123:This article is within the scope of
429:Low-importance Linguistics articles
66:It is of interest to the following
14:
30:on 4 October 2007. The result of
434:WikiProject Linguistics articles
424:Start-Class Linguistics articles
327:) 11:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
209:
184:
146:Template:WikiProject Linguistics
110:
100:
79:
48:
19:
163:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
340:11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
288:13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
385:05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
277:18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
235:Template:WikiProject Debating
137:and see a list of open tasks.
370:01:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
272:as it talks about earlier.
450:
169:project's importance scale
410:04:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
305:00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
204:
162:
95:
74:
126:WikiProject Linguistics
56:This article is rated
390:Copyeditor passing by
60:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
218:WikiProject Debating
149:Linguistics articles
118:Linguistics portal
62:content assessment
319:comment added by
254:
253:
250:
249:
246:
245:
238:Debating articles
179:
178:
175:
174:
42:
41:
36:no consensus/keep
441:
398:
328:
268:
267:
263:
240:
239:
236:
233:
230:
213:
206:
205:
200:
188:
181:
151:
150:
147:
144:
141:
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
449:
448:
444:
443:
442:
440:
439:
438:
414:
413:
396:
392:
314:
269:
265:
261:
259:
258:
237:
234:
231:
228:
227:
194:
148:
145:
142:
139:
138:
116:
109:
89:
57:
12:
11:
5:
447:
445:
437:
436:
431:
426:
416:
415:
391:
388:
309:
293:
291:
290:
257:
255:
252:
251:
248:
247:
244:
243:
241:
214:
202:
201:
189:
177:
176:
173:
172:
165:Low-importance
161:
155:
154:
152:
135:the discussion
122:
121:
105:
93:
92:
90:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
446:
435:
432:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
419:
412:
411:
407:
403:
399:
389:
387:
386:
382:
378:
372:
371:
367:
363:
358:
354:
350:
347:
343:
341:
337:
333:
332:216.164.5.136
326:
322:
321:216.164.5.136
318:
311:
307:
306:
303:
302:76.168.126.84
297:
294:
289:
286:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
264:
256:
242:
225:
224:
219:
215:
212:
208:
207:
203:
198:
193:
190:
187:
183:
170:
166:
160:
157:
156:
153:
136:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
393:
373:
359:
355:
351:
348:
344:
312:
308:
298:
295:
292:
270:
221:
164:
124:
68:WikiProjects
35:
377:24.27.39.74
315:—Preceding
140:Linguistics
131:linguistics
87:Linguistics
58:Start-class
418:Categories
397:Tenryuu 🐲
317:unsigned
229:Debating
223:inactive
197:inactive
192:Debating
28:deletion
167:on the
362:Nquach
260:": -->
64:scale.
342:CCoe
285:Gsham
381:talk
366:talk
336:talk
325:talk
274:NeSS
262:edit
34:was
408:)
159:Low
420::
406:📝
404:•
402:💬
400:(
383:)
368:)
338:)
379:(
375:~
364:(
334:(
323:(
266:]
226:.
199:)
195:(
171:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
