Rowan Pereira, Project Intern, Stonehill ’19
|10/11||2:15- 4:15 (2)|
Wednesday (10/10): I’ve finished going back through the text, and am about halfway through the code. So far, I’ve experienced a lot of frustration with the number of mistakes I’m finding while editing these works. I’m not sure how much can be done, because I understand that these projects take a great amount of experience, and the students that worked on them originally haven’t really had the experience needed to do a better job. It’s almost like putting students in skis for the first time and expecting them to go down a black diamond without falling. This isn’t an easy skill to excel in, and in order to do well, you really need to be into it and aiming for success.
Thursday (10/11): I’ve uploaded the newest edition of the 1664 Faustus code! It looks much better than it did, and I went through it a few times to make sure it looked as good as I could in terms of just looking at it (making sure the indents were in the right places, etc.). Professor Bennett and I have our phone call tomorrow, and I do have a few questions, but they can definitely wait until tomorrow. One interesting thing I did notice was that students would combine in-line features when they were coding them. In other words instead of <lg style=”font-weight: normal;”.>, they would say <lg style=”text-weight: normal;”>. The reason this interests me is that 1) the other group members didn’t catch this when they were peer editing, and 2) I didn’t catch it the first several times that I had gone through the code. I’m wondering if there is a better way to organize these types of things for future students. I know Professors Bennett and Hamlin provided a pretty detail guide on “How to’s” for in-line features, but maybe if there was a way to explain it in a different way that would be more clear. I don’t recall talking too much about the right way to encode in-line features, I just remember being told that that’s what we were supposed to do, and this is what it’s supposed to look like.
Friday (10/12): I finished the linking the personographies in the text. There are a few that weren’t included when we were originally encoding the personographies, but I’ve made a short list of the ones that need to be added to the file at another time. Unfortunately, it’s already October, and the top priority is to edit both texts from last semester and get them to a point where they can be published:
My next task is to go to the 1696 version of Doctor Fasutus, and essentially do the same exact thing I’ve done for the 1664 version.
Saturday (10/13): I was looking through the code for the 1696 edition of Doctor Faustus, and I would have stopped sooner, but I got through about half of the document and found that two entire pages of the code were missing. They had been completely looked over. I transcribed those pages with the in-line features, so that took me some time. I didn’t have too much trouble though, so that was nice to see that I still have the skills! I don’t have the printed version yet, and usually I’ll start by printing out the TAPAS version and the PDF version and comparing the two, but I don’t have access to a printer right now. I’m hoping the text already looks better than it did. After this, I’ll upload it to TAPAS just to double check!