Good articleRobin Starveling has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 20, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 6, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Robin Starveling, a character in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, may be a satire of one of Queen Elizabeth's suitors?

To the GA reviewer

edit

This article is pretty short, but after scouring several books and scholarly articles, I'm confident that the article is comprehensive. Wrad 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you have access to the World Shakespeare Bibliography Online? Awadewit | talk 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Wrad 05:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, it looks like some doors have been opened. Can you hold the review a couple days and let me see how much there is and what's worth adding? Wrad 05:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. You know that above all I am interested in helping people write quality articles. I wasn't sure if you had already consulted that source, but it seemed like it might help you out on these "obscure" Shakespeare characters. :) Awadewit | talk 05:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
There isn't much, and a lot of it is used already. But I'll see what I can dig up. Wrad 06:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
It must feel good to find what you have used! That means your claim to comprehensiveness to probably accurate! Just drop me a line when you want me to review the article. Awadewit | talk 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Do you want to withdraw the nomination for now, until you are done with the research? Nothing wrong with that. Awadewit | talk 07:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm pretty much done with the research now, so go ahead and review it. Wrad 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

GA hold

edit

Just a few things related to prose:

  • his ridiculous role as Moonshine shining on the lovers adding to the play's contrast of symbolism and reality - a bit vague
  • The date of play should be in the lead to help the uninformed reader.
  • "Role in the play" could be expanded a bit by providing more context from the play.
  • Image, at least of Shakespeare? (I like the quote box at the top, though.)
  • Robin's stupidly standing there, attempting to be moonshine, doesn't make him so. Similarly, no representation of anything in a play can really be completely real or truthful, no matter how hard its players may try. - This is a bit colloquial and doesn't quite express the sophistication of the idea. What is it that the scholars are saying Shakespeare is doing here? Is he saying that theater is a poor shadow of reality?
  • The Mechanical's decision to use Robin as moonlight in place of actual moonlight delves into one of the themes of Midsummer Night's Dream: the contrast between reality and symbolic representations of reality, or the problem of making the part truly represent the whole (the rhetorical term for such symbolism is synecdoche). - New version of this is better, but I don't think the play is trying to solve the problem of "making the part truly represent the whole" - synechoche is just a rhetorical device. Awadewit | talk 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Not sure I understand what you're saying. It's not trying to solve the problem, it's presenting the problem, revealing the problem, exaggerating the problem. Shakespeare constantly begged his viewers to forgive the actors' feeble attempts in several plays, such as Henry V, to represent some great person or army with few resources. Here, rather than begging forgiveness, Shakespeare exaggerates the idea that synechdoche, all too often, just doesn't work. Wrad 19:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • A rhetorical term for this is synecdoche, or a part representing the whole - the "this" doesn't refer back to the appropriate idea; either restate the idea or reorder the sentences
  • Robin attempts to employ syecdoche in his portrayal of the moon - This is an awkward formulation.
  • Check spelling of "synecdoche" throughout.
  • The "Analysis" section should be broken up into topical paragraphs.

Small things, as usual. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 17:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's fine. Once my work-week is over I'll come back. Wrad 14:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Thank goodness my horrific flu is not virtually contagious. :) Awadewit | talk 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just went over it, I think I've got everything above covered, except for the image. Wrad 19:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Synecdoche?

edit

Now let me get this straight: the lantern is "part of the moon?" I don't think so. The lantern is used to represent the moon because it gives off light, as does the moon. It's a simple metaphore, not synecdoche.Floggolozzo (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed and removed. Eroica (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

MOON

edit

Starveling clearly plays the moon as the tarot trump Moon, lacking the eagle and scorpion of that symbol set only. Robin Dudley was Queen E.'s oldest suitor, a renowned dandy who was bankrupted by E's long visits. He was chubby too which would redouble the joke. On the other hand Devereaux was allegedly bisexual and "tailor" was a coding for that. Probably there is an element of conflation here. Klasovsky (talk) 05:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Hungerleider" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hungerleider. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 10#Hungerleider until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply