Talk:Original Oratory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 October 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

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 as it talks about earlier. NeSS 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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 Gsham 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. Structural expectations (such as "problem/cause/solutions") tend to be regional trends.76.168.126.84 00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this be split into persuasive and informative OO. Two clearly different categories.