Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Shakespeare

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

William Shakespeare edit

previous FAC

Partial self-nom; but I hope my fellow editors will sign below. William Shakespeare is a good article. A number of editors have been addressing the issues raised in June at the previous FAC, which mainly concerned the need for copyediting and a uniformly high standard of references. The article came close last time, thanks to the excellent work of those who prepared it on that occasion. It has now improved further and surely meets the FA criteria.qp10qp 18:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) I heartily agree. Another self-nom. Wrad 18:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Agreed. It has improved. RedRabbit 03:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC) I concur. The accuracy of this entry is probably unsurpassed by any similar article on the Internet. Tom Reedy 17:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'll admit that I came to this new FAC wanting to oppose b/c of the bad blood resulting from the previous FAC. But the truth is, the article is now vastly improved. The only minor critique I have is that the performances subsection of the plays section is too long and should focus only on those performances during Shakespeare's life. All other performances info can be placed in Shakespeare's plays. But that won't stop me from supporting. I hope other reviewers will not get hung up on trivial POV or technical issues like they did before and see this article for what it is--one of the best on Wikipedia.--Alabamaboy 01:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alabamaboy; that's really appreciated. As you know, the material about performance history was added only recently (I went through the requests at the last FAC and noticed that it was asked for). I'll remove it for the moment; and it can always be restored if required. Rather than add it to Shakespeare's plays, I think Shakespeare performance history is a large enough topic to deserve an article to itself: so I'll address that when this FAC is finished.qp10qp 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thanks for helping bring the article to FA level. I also agree that the performance history needs its own article (since it already takes up such a large chunk of the plays article). I've created the new article at Shakespearean performances by bringing together the info already present in other articles. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was much needed; thanks. I've got some spare bits and pieces of material I can add to it too; and I'm about to read Jonathan Bate's book, which might provide some more.qp10qp 15:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Really well written and well oraganized. But this article is so high class, that i feel that if a kid will use the page for his project, he won't get a word! Luxurious.gaurav 06:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to be "high-class" and accessible (as Orwell showed); so I will see what I can do. Thanks for your support.qp10qp 07:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. -prose is great. Nothing jumps out needing obvious correcting or tweaking. well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time. It's appreciated.qp10qp 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is worth FA status.--Ianmacm 16:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. To support, or not to support? That is the question. And due to how well written and referenced this article is, the answer for me is support. --RandomOrca2 04:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  
  Shall I compare thee to a Featured A?
     Thou art as lengthy and as templated:
  Tough dogs may shake the yearling candidate,
     Yet Shakespeare's leash shan't be so fated:
  Sometime too hot the eye of critique shines,
     And often the star's gold complexion dimm'd;
  And every FA from FA sometime declines,
     By chance, or Marskell's changing course, untrimm'd;
  But thy eternal "feature" shall not fade,
     Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
  Nor shall Raul brag thou wander'st in his shade,
     When in the outside light thou growest;
  So long as netheads click, or GNU can see,
     So long lives this, and gives life to qp10qp.</poem>

   –Outriggr § 06:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( : --qp10qp 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I count that as a support? Or did you just want to praise fair qp10qp? I will allow both together, if you like. :) RedRabbit 06:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official Proposition I propose that all future comments on any FA candidates should be required to be made in poem form. Okiefromokla•talk 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - without longer debate, an excellent article. MarkBA t/c/@ 09:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to all the reviewers for taking the trouble (I was so worried not many people would bother). If any of you have an article you would like me to review, please drop me a line (though, I'd better warn you that, in a polite way, I can be annoyingly fussy).qp10qp 11:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the words of the poet and the painter: 'Tis a good Peece. This comes off well, and excellent. DrKiernan 15:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written and engaging. Comprehensive and comprehensively referenced, yet logically organized and readable. Covers the relevant points with admirable brevity where needed. To my tastes the balance between Life and Art is a feather too light on the biographical side, but that's probably as it should be for a general audience. (Note that I've edited this article, just not in any way sufficient to claim any kind of credit for its current state.)--Xover 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As with the last time around, though there has been vast improvement since. A great achievement, well done all. Ceoil 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It takes a long time to read an article like this; so once again, thanks to reviewers.qp10qp 23:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A judiciously organised and very readable article, well-supported by references taken from leading authorities. Having had no previous connexion with this article, I've jumped in from time to time to ask questions and do a little rephrasing and suchlike, but that amounts to a lot less than 1% of the finished product. Just look at the Talk page to see how seriously everyone - and I mean everyone - has taken the task of co-operating on improving the article, with special kudos to qp10qp for actually doing so much of the legwork and to Tom Reedy for successfully stirring things up. --GuillaumeTell 00:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - a great article. Though it is a tad long, it is well worth the read. My only qualm is about the speculation section being split up into three stubby subsections. Is it not possible to have a single section summarising the speculation in several paragraphs, and then make the main link from that go to a summary-style article (say Speculation about Shakespeare) that further links to the three subtopics of authorship, religion and sexuality? Oh, and all praise to Outriggr for the best ever FAC support! :-) Carcharoth 02:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. The idea is intriguing. The Speculations on Shakespeare article could explore other facets of speculation about his life... But it would be very difficult to reign things in. It may just turn into a mess of every kind of speculation that any average Joe every thought up... Wrad 02:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Speculation about Shakespeare" section is an oddity that we inherited. The stubby sectioning results from our unwillingness to allow these speculations to gain undue weight. Any lengthening there would undoubtedly give the section too much importance in relation to other aspects of Shakespeare's life and work. Ideally, these questions would be subsumed in the "Life" section", where speculation issues about less controversial matters can already be found; but we can at least keep a better eye on them in their own sections. The "Speculation" section is a wiki-compromise that you don't find in other encyclopedias. Maybe it would save us some trouble at James I of England if we put the sexuality-speculation stuff in its own section there too and restricted it to a set weight.qp10qp 08:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research: that's really thorough (I wouldn't expect anything else)! I intend to check the articles that main-link to our sections, but I suspect it will take years for all the linked articles to come up to scratch. This is a particular issue with such a multiplicitous subject as Shakespeare, but it's an issue throughout Wikipedia, since every article links to others. The Shakespeare Wikiproject intends to improve the quality of Shakespeare articles overall, but it wanted to start with this one, which is the mother and father of all the others, even if, like Old Mother Hubbard, it has so many children it doesn't know what to do.qp10qp 11:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks. I've added some initial comments to the ones that seem to need most attention, but obviously concentrate on this one for now. Carcharoth 12:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to clutter this with side issues, too much, but a couple of comments. Firstly thanks for your kind comments on a few of those pages. Secondly, I think that so-long as the linked articles are not awful then their shortcomings (if any) shouldn't detract from the FACacy of this article. Thirdly, I'm not sure I really approve of a direct main article link to Chronology (Oxfordian). I'll look into that and report back. Sixth-and-lastly, I have great plans for List of historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare, but at the moment it only exists at all because "Category:Historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare" got deleted, so it contains nothing but a listification of that former cat. I'm inclined to think that in its current state it shouldn't link from the main article, either. AndyJones 12:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, reporting back: so far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, please??) the two articles that bothered me aren't linked from anywhere except the {Shakespeare} template, so I don't think I need to take any action on them. AndyJones 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC) - agreed - the ones you mention are just linked from the templates. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I agree with AndyJones that the offshoot articles should not be held against the main article. Most of them are of good to very good quality, but obviously they are not yet at FA level. Still, the Shakespeare Wikiproject intends to improve the quality of all these Shakespeare articles over time and, once this main article reaches FA status, we will turn our attention to the secondary articles. I'd also prefer to leave the speculations section as is.--Alabamaboy 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to add, in agreement with the previous two posts, that the outstanding work done on this article has already vastly improved all of the articles mentioned and sent them well on their way to GA and higher status. If anyone wants to help with these articles, they are welcome to join the Shakespeare WikiProject, which is becoming more and more effective in its goals by the day. That said, let's continue to focus on the article in question, William Shakespeare. If every related article had to be FA before one could be, we'd never have any FAs until all of wikipedia was one! Wrad 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the above. Consider my comments a "don't stop there" vote! :-) Obviously my support stands, and I'd be surprised if anyone finds any major problems with the article. And congratulations on getting the Shakespeare article up to this standard. I remember thinking a few years ago that this was something that needed doing, and the results have been spectacular. Carcharoth 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we considered the quality of the linked articles at FAC, I don't think any article would be an FA. :) Awadewit | talk 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a small, picky question in an otherwise excellent article. Does every sentence in the lead need to start with the article subject, Shakespeare? I would prefer more variety. Mattisse 13:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to soften the effect.qp10qp 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - I agree with Alabamaboy that this article has greatly improved since the last FAC. I am definitely leaning towards support, but I have some small concerns that can be easily (I hope) addressed.
Since I rewrote the biographical section at least once, I peppered the following with a few comments. I also unstruck the comments I think need attention or more discussion. Tom Reedy 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, it's the convention that we only strike or unstrike our own comments. Otherwise, it is confusing for the director. It would be better if you marked any reservations that you feel need addressing as "Comment". Your comments will be taken seriously, whether other people's comments are unstruck or not.qp10qp 11:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I apologize. I was trying only to make them easier to find. Should I go back and restrike them? Tom Reedy 15:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the life:

  • William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)[a] was an English poet and playwright who is now regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. - Surely not everyone agrees on this? "by some scholars" or "by many" perhaps?
(Umm..can you find a reference of someone who doesn't? I'd be surprised. I thought it was pretty universal) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike this opening as much as anyone but it's eminently referenceable, while the opposite isn't, and all the other encyclopedias and popular books have something like it (even so, it is referenced to good sources). But then again, I am not reading books in Greek, Chinese or Arabic. I have added "often", but I don't hold out any hope that that sentence of the article will ever be stable.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Often" is fine with me. To answer your question, Casliber, yes, there are many people who don't think that Shakespeare is the greatest writer in the English language or the world's pre-eminent dramatist (I would be one of them). More importantly, there are published work that ascribe to this view as well. Perhaps more importantly, in a situation like this it is nearly impossible to claim universality - you would have to survey the entire population of the world to prove it, or at the very least, read every scrap ever published on Shakespeare. Since I'm pretty sure the editors haven't done either of these things, some qualifier seems in order. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, I see no reason for the word "now" in the lead sentence. I think "is" takes care of the temporality of the statement. And I think "usually" or "generally" is a better word than "often," which makes it seem as if people think about it several times a day, or at least moe than once a week. Tom Reedy 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Now" takes helps take care of the universality problem. Certainly people in Ancient Greece, for example, did not think Shakespeare was the greatest playwright in the English language. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given that English did not exist at the time, I would have to agree. My point is that "is" implies the present time, and so "now" is redundant. The sentence does not state that Shakespeare is considered the greatest writer in any language or of all time. Tom Reedy 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think it will be read that way by careless readers. I think that the redundancy is a necessary emphasis to make sure that the sense is adequately conveyed to the reader. (Why is everyone always against redundancies? They have a long and noble history ("It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.....")) Awadewit | talk 05:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we can do much to ensure careless readers don't read carelessly; nor do I think we should be in an article about shakespeare. And that's not a redundancy; that's an parataxical antithesis using anaphora. Tom Reedy 06:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, man! I'm feeling left behind now. I should buy a dictionary of literary terms or Teach Yourself Ancient Greek to catch up. RedRabbit 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to "usually" or "generally"? I thought that was an improvement. I'm not wedded to the "now", but I do think it is a courtesy to the reader. We are all poor readers sometime. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it to the satisfaction of all (I hope). Tom Reedy 02:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His surviving works include 38 plays,[b] two long narrative poems, 154 sonnets, and a few other poems. - perhaps "a few other short poems" to distinguish them from the narrative poems?
I've changed it to "shorter" (because A Lover's Complaint is medium length).qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But some of them are longer than the sonnets - rearranged the sentence to fix this. --GuillaumeTell 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smart.qp10qp 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family house on Henley Street is assumed to be Shakespeare's birthplace, though firm evidence is lacking and scholars have suggested other possibilities. - Perhaps some of these other possibilities could be included in the footnote?
I've cut this because none of my biographies bother with it, and I don't have the book that is is reffed to.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I thought this was unnecessary also. Tom Reedy 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, no attendance records for the period survive. - some sort of phrase about "therefore we cannot be certain Shakespeare attended the school" needs to be added here
(I would have thought it was self-explanatory - hence adding the phrase would be redundant and not good prose)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conclusion is implicit rather than explicit. For this article, which is read by such a wide variety of users, I think it is best to be as explicit as possible. But that's MHO. Awadewit | talk 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this change introduces almost a tautology. Since no records exist, there is no proof anyone attended the school, yet apparently there was one. Tom Reedy 04:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that it was just attendance records from this period that didn't survive. Leases, contracts, and attendance records from other periods might have survived - what do the sources say on this? Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some go all the way and flatly say he attended, since his works indicate he had a grammar school education -- not a private education or university training -- but most of them use a variation of "we can be sure he attended Stratford grammar school even though no records survive," which is what I call a shadow of a qualification, similar to what we had. My point was that the explicitness is unnecessary, because payment records, contracts, etc. indicate there was a school and it was free. Saying we can't be sure Shakespeare attended because we have no attendence records is akin to saying we can't be sure anybody attended for the same reason, which verges on the ridiculous. Tom Reedy 05:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not insisting on the "obvious" conclusion for that reason. I was insisting on it because I have a feeling that many readers would not be able to draw that conclusion from the paragraph. Perhaps my years of teaching freshmen composition have made me too cynical. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christ, I remember those days! We should put a few rare key words in the article to catch them if when they plagiarize it! Tom Reedy 05:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. I always have at least one plagiarized paper a semester. What is wrong with people, anyway? (I heard that the grad students who used to write CliffsNotes deliberately put in false information so that the students relying on the handbooks would get caught - is that an urban legend? Awadewit | talk 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. I doubt that grad students wrote CliffsNotes, tho; more likely PhDs who couldn't get jobs. One incident I remember particularly: I had my freshman students write five essays during the semester, and one weekend my son bought an encyclopedia on bodybuilding, and I thumbed through it a bit. The next Monday an essay was due, and a jock turned in a paper on bodybuilding that was suspiciously familiar. I was merciful and gave him the option of dropping out, which of course he took. Tom Reedy 06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind either the original or the changed version.qp10qp 11:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I happen to know that graduate students used to write CliffsNotes. I met some. Whether or not they later got jobs, I couldn't say. They were simply trying to supplement their meager income. What are we doing about the sentence? I vote for inclusion, but if I am overruled, that is that. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See if the rewrite is acceptable. I pushed the qualification to the front to give it a bit added weight and also made it clear that biographers were aware of the lacuna to fend off any there's-no-proof-Shakespeare-ever-attended-school people. Tom Reedy 03:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much more elegant, I think. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images in the early section of the biography are on the right side of the article - could they be staggered? It would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Done.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most agree that Greene is accusing Shakespeare of reaching above his station in trying to match writers who had been to university. - Might we name at least one of these?
Names added.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot, especially when we learn Greene himself is one of them. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should Marlowe and Nashe be referred to by their full names on first reference? Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the article didn't follow that convention - I thought it was to save space. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I thought we tried to follow it. I'll change those two and look for any others. Tom Reedy 05:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much to save space as to prevent name pile-ups clogging sentences. My principle was: where a list of names is given purely as incidental examples, use surnames.qp10qp 11:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be something like that. I don't mind. However, some of the names might be obscure to readers, such as Nashe. Either way. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we don't know this, but how did Shakespeare have enough money to buy a share in the Lord Chamberlain's Men?
Added point, reffed to Honan.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with this change, because (a) Honan doesn't reference it, (b)I can't find it in Schoenbaum (tho I'm not saying it isn't there), and (c) Chambers says he might have paid £100 for his share. Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to remove the £50. Such overdetailing is not crucial, and Honan's point is handy, though it may be his speculation (Honan is the most cautious of the biographers I've read, however). Chambers is an old book, and I'm sure Honan would have taken him into account.
I suggest we cut the entire sentence. It just introduces a needless speculation that can't be answered, and they don't cover all the possibilities. Shakespeare may have been a founding member because he was an apprentice with the former troupe, etc., etc. We don't know how any of the members became sharers, or how much of even if they paid. Tom Reedy 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate request by a reviewer has been answered. And referenced material has been added. It is of far more value than some of the other speculation in the article.qp10qp 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it answered the question. He or she asked HOW did Shakespeare have enough money to buy a share, not how much he paid. The question was also prefaced with "I'm sure we don't know this," which tells me an answer or a change wasn't really expected (but I'm sure he or she can let us know better than I). Tom Reedy 19:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom is correct about my original intent. I was curious how it was that Shakespeare could have amassed whatever amount of money needed to buy into the company. From the answers I received, I just concluded that the amount was all we knew. I think the amount is less interesting than how he managed to scrounge it up. Awadewit | talk 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think he won a £50 bet with the earl of Essex over whether true love could be realistically portrayed on stage. Tom Reedy 04:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Lord Chamberlain's Men attracted the patronage of the new king, James I, and changed their name to the King's Men - is the "Lord Chamberlain's Men" singular? should it be "changed its name"? is it a group, that is, rather than assemblage of men?
I've edited to avoid the problem. Usage differs on each side of the Atlantic.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know about the usage difference - I'm not trying to stir up AE/BE trouble. :) Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1599, a partnership of company members built their own theatre on the south bank of the Thames, beyond the reach of the city authorities. Naming it the Globe, they leased it to the playing company. - This is a bit unclear - which company built and which company leased?
I've cut this. Colleague Tom Reedy has this in one of his books, but none of my books trouble the reader with the financial niceties of the way the company and leasings were set up.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, both Schoenbaum and Chambers cover it in detail, but I don't think it's that critical for a general-article encyclopedia. Tom Reedy 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1597, he bought the second-largest house in Stratford, New Place. In 1605, he invested in a share of the parish tithes in Stratford. In 1613, he bought a gatehouse near the Blackfriars theatre. - could these sentences be combined? "in + date" is repeated three times in a row in an inelegant manner
Improved.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absence of his name from the 1605 cast list for Jonson’s Volpone is taken by some scholars as a sign that his acting career was winding down. - Might "winding down" be too colloquial?
I've changed it to "slowing down".qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting: according to the OED, "winding up" is the correct term! Tom Reedy 04:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually know that. :) The issue is more about readability, I think, though. What are the associations that the average reader has with the phrase "winding down". In America, anyway, it is used for things like "winding down after a long day at work" and is quite colloquial. Awadewit | talk 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're right, and it's not an issue for me. I just had one of those "duh" moments when I looked to see if the term "winding down" was listed in the OED and thought it was funny. Tom Reedy 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He signed legal documents as "William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon". - This sentence seems unrelated to those around it.
I've related it. The point is that even though he lived in London a lot, he still chose to sign documents as a Stratford man.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I see. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • a maker of ladies' wigs and ornamental headgear - It is not entirely clear to me what "ornamental headgear" might be.
I've changed it to Greenblatt's "and other headgear" to save the reader thinking about it. Both Honan and Schoenbaum say "ornamental headgear" and leave it at that. No one knows what he actually made, that's for sure.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes we do. Mountjoy was a tirer, who made tires, onamental headgear for women. In its simplest form, it was a metal headband, but most of them were studded with semi-presious and precious stones, and intricately woven with gold and silver wire. There are extant records of Mountjoy making such for Queen Elizabeth. "And other headgear" could mean scarves or hats, which Mounjoy did not make, so this is an example of a simplification that introduces an inaccuracy. Tom Reedy 04:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All simplifications are inaccurate at some level. I think that this one is acceptable, since this piece of information is barely relevant to Shakespeare at all. Too many new ideas and details weigh a reader down and they simply give up. Awadewit | talk 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your comment was that "ornamental headgear" (which is a simplification) was unclear, and just "headgear" is certainly unclear. I think if we're going to choose between two simplified, unclear descriptions I opt for the most accurate one. Tom Reedy 05:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I think "ornamental headgear" sounds odder and will stop the reader (well, some readers anyway, like me). Precision can lead to unnecessary confusion sometimes. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both "other headgear" and "ornamental headgear" are correct. But I agree with Awadewit's point, which is subtle. "Ornamental" makes the readers wonder about something which they really needn't be bothered with. And how do we know that Mountjoy didn't make hats or scarves, anyway? Yes, we know that he was a tirer, but that could mean a lot of things. One theory, which makes a lot of sense to me, is that he was a tirer for the King's Men. In that case he might have made a variety of barnetwear, not just wigs and jewelled bands. Theatricality and pageant were a feature of the age, so I bet he turned out all manner of monstrosities.qp10qp 12:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1613, he bought a gatehouse near Blackfriars Theatre - "a" gatehouse or "the" gatehouse?
I've changed it to "the gatehouse".qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorted out double word, + clarified - priories only had/have one gatehouse. --GuillaumeTell 17:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness we have an ecclesiastical adviser on the staff.qp10qp 23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of confusion about this. Although there may have been only one gate, apparently there was more than one house built over it. In 1623, an adjacent gatehouse collapsed when more than 400 Catholics held a secret mass on the third floor (see http://www.genealogysource.com/druryrobert.htm for the short version). Shakespeare's house was passed down in the family until Lady Bernard willed it to her kinsman, Ed. Bagley in 1647. It burned in 1666, and the next year Bagley sold the land to Sir Heneage Fetherson for £35. So "a gatehouse" would be accurate. Tom Reedy 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "he bought a gatehouse in the Blackfriars priory". This allows for there to have been more than one gatehouse—but even if there were only one gatehouse, it still works. It's like saying, "he lived in a bungalow on Rye golfcourse": whether there was one or more bungalows there doesn't come into it.". We had similar problems with a gatehouse of the Old Bishop's Palace in Oslo at James I of England. It's hard for us to visualise how these old Catholic complexes were cannibalised by property developers.qp10qp 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare wrote no known plays after 1613. - This repeats information already given.
Sorted. Good catch.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his will, Shakespeare sought to hold his large estate together by leaving the bulk of it to his elder daughter Susanna.[60] The will instructed that it be passed down intact to a male heir. - This is a little confusing as Susanna is not male - do you mean a male grandchild?
I've added a little phrase from the will to make it clear.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer - thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be clearer, but it is inaccurate. Shakespeare's intention was to pass down the bulk of his estate to a male heir, not just to keep it together. He gave it to his daughter Susanna to hold for her natural life but entailed the property to be passed down to her male heir, and in case she didn't have one, to the male heir of her daughter (who was living when he died), and in case she didn't have one, to the male heir of his other daughter, Juddith. So we need to decide if we want to be generally correct without much detail or generally correct with a lot of detail so there's no chance of confusion, but I hope you agree with me that clear but inaccurate is not an acceptable option. Tom Reedy 04:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say he entailed it on the next male heir, then? This is the same as Pride and Prejudice, is it not? Awadewit | talk 05:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it similar to that originally, but a few of the editors objected, (something about how the word "entail" would stop the reader, or some such nonsense!) and so it was replaced with the previous version before now. Tom Reedy 05:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Through an entail, a complicated legal arrangement, Shakespeare sought to both hold his estate together and bequeath it to his next male heir." Awadewit | talk 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my original: In his will Shakespeare left the bulk of his large estate to his daughter, Susanna Hall.[58] Shakespeare sought to hold together the real property of the estate for a male heir, and so he entailed Susanna’s share to be handed down to her eldest male heir upon her death, or to the eldest male heir of her daughter in case Susanna produced no sons, or, failing that, to the eldest male heir of Judith.[59] The Quineys had four children, all of whom died without marrying, and the Halls had one child, Elizabeth, who married twice but died without children in 1670, thus ending Shakespeare’s direct line.[60] I agree that was too much, so it was then changed to this: In his will, Shakespeare sought to hold together the real property of his large estate by leaving the bulk of it to his daughter, Susanna Hall,[62] and he made arrangements in the will for it to be passed down intact to a male heir. Then I left the country and someone made this change: . . . and the will stipulated that it be passed down intact to a male heir. Tom Reedy 06:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was inaccurate at all. But I've changed it to: In his will, Shakespeare left the bulk of his large estate to his elder daughter Susanna.[60] The terms instructed that she pass it down intact to "the first son of her body". This removes "hold it together" (not my wording), which is covered by "intact". And by emphasising that "she" pass it down, any final vagueness is removed. Of course, we could say a lot more about the default provisions, but that would be too much information for this article. And Honan describes the whole thing without lumbering his readers with the word "entail", so I think we should do the same. qp10qp 13:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer writes. As some of you know, I do equity law in my day job. I'm no expert on the law of the time, of course, but looking at the will I'm not altogether sure it is an "entail" in the strict sense of the term. On the face of it it's more like a remainder. I suppose my only real point is that we should avoid using the term "entail" unless we have a reliable (ideally legally qualified) source. In that respect. I think QP's last version is best. AndyJones 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that big a deal for me, so I doubt it would be for the expected audience. My only point was that his desire to keep the estate together was because of his intention to found a dynasty with a male heir, not just to give it to his daughter. I'm a bit nit-picky myself sometimes. Tom Reedy 19:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He did make a point, however, of leaving her "my second best bed", a bequest that has led to much scholarly speculation - Might we put some of the speculation in a footnote?
We are trying to keep footnotes to a minimum, but I've added a line about this to the article.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I just felt like readers would be left hanging otherwise. Awadewit | talk 02:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which edition of As You Like It is being quoted in the text box?
Oxford. I've added it.qp10qp 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the rest of the article in the next day or so. Awadewit | talk 19:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Astute observations, as usual. Most of these points are easily addressed. I'll be on them in an hour or so.qp10qp 20:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me, too. We need an advocatus diaboli for these matters, and for the added fun! RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your patience with my nit-picking. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the plays:

  • may also belong to Shakespeare’s earliest period.[67] His early histories, which draw heavily on the 1587 edition - repetition of "early" is inelegant
Changed.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:MOS-L#Form, apostrophe "s"'s go inside the link (it is logical, after all)
I can't get it to do it that way, for some reason.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[Shakespeare|Shakespeare's]] is the only way I know. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a few - I'll just fix them myself. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • dramatise the evil results of weak or corrupt rule and have been interpreted as a justification for the origins - "evil results" sounds a bit cheesy
Changed to "destructive".qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their composition was influenced by the works of other Elizabethan dramatists, especially Thomas Kyd and Christopher Marlowe, by the traditions of medieval drama, and by the plays of Seneca, with their rhetoric and bloodthirstiness. - "with their rhetoric and bloodthirtiness" is hanging off the sentence; also "rhetoric" is vague - what kind of rhetoric? bloodthirsty rhetoric, perhaps?
    • Someone has taken care of this. RedRabbit 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me. Removed the hanging bit.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't name you, qp10qp, so that you could make a grand entrance. :) RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned you here and there lower down, so that you can make several grand entrances of your own.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Two Gentlemen of Verona, in which two friends appear to approve of rape,[72] the Shrew's story of the taming of a woman's independent spirit by a man presents difficulties for modern critics and directors. - perhaps also include something about these themes ordinariess at the time? also, why are we privileging the modern viewpoint at this point in the article? This kind of statement seems to belong to a section on modern interpretation or performance.
We don't have a section on modern performance. I find that books talk about these plays as performance pieces at the same time as analysing them purely as literature. The approach in the article is to mix it all up, as the sources do.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems to be out of place since the only modern reactions the article mentions, at this point any way, are reactions of disgust or discomfort. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it punctures the subtext of the article, which is very pro-Shakespeare.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Italian and classical style of Shakespeare's early comedies gives way in the mid-1590s - I missed the bit about the "Italian style" - where is that?
Added earlier mention of "Italianate".qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what does "Italianate" mean? About Italy and sex? That is what I can deduce from the text. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a phrase about it.qp10qp 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there is some sort of delay in updating servers or something, because I don't see anything new. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Italianate seems needlessly obtuse to me. Is it a specialist term? I only see it applied to architeture — cf. Italianate — elsewhere. Do we need to use this term here?--Xover 10:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the bit: "Shakespeare's early classical and Italianate comedies, with their tight double plots and precise comic sequences, give way in the mid-1590s to the romantic atmosphere of his greatest comedies."
The word "Italianate" is in the source. I like it myself because it captures for me the fussy precise style of those plots, which are indeed architecturally self-conscious. The alternatives are relatively clumsy, in my opinion: "Italian-influenced", "Italian models", "Italian-style", etc. We might wish away the need to pin down the generic styles of Shakespeare's early comedies, but, though the general reader probably knows little about this, the Italian influence is accepted by scholars, and we owe it to the readers to mention it.qp10qp 15:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a link? Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Midsummer Night's Dream is a witty mixture of romance, fairy magic, and comic low-life scenes;[75] but the next comedy, the equally romantic The Merchant of Venice, contains a portrayal of the vengeful Jewish moneylender Shylock that may trouble modern audiences as racist. - Again, I'm not sure why were are privileging the modern reaction at this point - for hundreds of years, Shylock was anything but controversial. I think that this needs to be made clear.
I've added that the depiction reflected the prevailing view of Jews at the time. I don't think it is possible to mention Shylock in this article without mentioning racism. Which is a modern response, as indicated.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, mentioning modern discomfort in this section seems skewed somehow. Also, note the POV: misogynist plays are described as "presenting difficulties" for modern audiences, while Merchant is clearly described as "racist". Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are different. You can play Shrew and Gentlemen to subvert the misogyny: the difficulty can be got around, and I've seen an RSC feminist Shrew. And there's definite ambiguity in the script, as critics point out. But no matter how sympathetic you make Shylock, the racism is overt. I am also only using the sources. Park Honan, a mere biographer, says, "There is an odd difficulty in the author's treatment of a Jewish villain, a problem no easier for modern directors and audiences after the Holocaust." And he quotes the director Peter Hall on racism and Shylock.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still don't like it, but I accept this explanation. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the poetic Richard II - aren't all Shakespeare's plays "poetic" - why are we singling this one out?
    • Changed to "lyrical" to emphasise difference (again, not by me). RedRabbit 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improved wording to show that this play was written in a lyric vein and almost entirely in verse. Roland Frye has shown how different was the style of the next two histories (the Henry IVs, my favourite Shakespeare plays), which often launched into comic prose.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Awadewit | talk 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''After the poetic Richard II, Shakespeare introduced comic writing into the mature histories of the late 1590s, Henry IV, parts I and 2, and Henry V. - the use of "mature" is very common in literary scholarship, but I'm not sure readers will understand its usage here - I would explain the word a bit
I just removed it, and it reads cleanly enough.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Julius Caesar—based on Sir Thomas North's 1579 translation of Plutarch's Parallel Lives—which introduced a new kind of drama - what new kind of drama? the combination of history and comedy? perhaps this paragraph could be reordered a bit
I added a quote from Shapiro to explain the breakthrough in this play. It's not a simple matter to reorder the paragraph, if you think about it. Julius Caesar has to come at the end: it is seen as the last tragedy before the great tragedies and the last of this period. It also opened (very probably) the Globe and so needs to appear at this bridging point. Yes, it's clumsy to mention R and J with it, because that came at the beginning of the period: but it's the only other tragedy. The comedies and late histories are the meat of this paragraph as they are of this period.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote is a little vague, but it helps. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plots of Shakespeare's tragedies often hinge on such fatal errors or flaws, through which evil overturns order and destroys the hero and those he loves - evil is vague; Shakespeare would not be considered a great playwright if he only wrote about "evil"!
I've removed "evil" there.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • an old king commits the tragic error of giving up his powers to his evil daughters and rejecting his good daughter, triggering scenes of unrelieved cruelty - again, it is not really "good" vs. "evil" - at least something like "ambitious and selfish" vs. "compassionate and dutiful"?; also, what does "scenes of unrelieved cruelty" mean? for whom? This is clear to those of us who have read the play, but not necessarily to others.
I've tried to add to this by describing two pieces of cruelty and adding a quote from Kermode. Kermode's view on this play is a key one, from what I've read. By the way, I am adding a quote or two from critics and scholars to balance the Eliot one. I realise my summaries of the theories aren't getting over (I've read a lot about "evil", and I assumed that was a standard interpretation), so I'm going to let the scholars chip in for themselves.qp10qp 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope they would be using "evil" in some sort of context. Here, unfortunately, it looks cartoonish. Awadewit | talk 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • until their own guilt, assisted by supernatural forces, destroys them in turn - is their guilt "assisted by supernatural forces"? this seems awkward and not quite right
I know. That sentence was a nightmare. It's so contorting trying to sum plays up so briefly and still make the paragraphs work as a whole. I've broken the sentence up.qp10qp 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare's last major tragedies, Antony and Cleopatra and Coriolanus, contain some of Shakespeare's finest poetry and were considered his most successful tragedies by the poet and critic T. S. Eliot. - We have no mention of critics' names until now - why single out Eliot? Such a statement belongs in "Reception", I think.
To be honest, I didn't quite know what to put about these two plays that would single them out. The fact that Eliot rated them so highly struck me as very interesting. It made me read Coriolanus for the first time, and I am hoping that his name will prompt some readers to do the same. Apart from Hamlet, I dislike the great tragedies, but I really enjoyed Corry.qp10qp
Well, not everything Shakespeare wrote was a masterpiece. How about at least saying that Eliot's conclusions are unusual? Awadewit | talk 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are unusual in saying that they are the best plays. But the two plays are highly rated, particularly A&C. I don't see a problem here.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I won't battle it out over this one. :) Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less bleak and more artificial than the tragedies - artificial has such a negative connotation now - is there a way to explain this better to the uninformed reader?
I've removed it. But I read Shakespeare's Late Style, by Russ McDonald, which goes on ad infinitum about artificiality.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. I didn't mean remove the world, I meant explain the word. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I agree that the word is used everywhere, but the audiences reading it in those books are generally more familiar with its positive connotations than your average wiki-reader, I think. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear for whom Shakespeare wrote his early plays; the title page of the 1594 edition of Titus Andronicus reveals that it had been acted by three different companies. - a little confusing at the beginning of a section; I can hear my students now - didn't he write them for the public?
Improved.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The popular comic actor Will Kempe played Peter in Romeo and Juliet - "Peter" is not jumping out in my memory (I had to go look him up); perhaps at least "the servant Peter"?
I added your suggestion. For a long time I tried to understand why these two parts were mentioned, since Kempe is associated with many other parts. But I have to give the original editor, whoever he/she was, some credit, because it turns out that these are the only two parts for which there is documentary evidence that Kempe played them.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It all makes sense now. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was the last to touch those particular sentences; and, yes, I was quite careful to restrict it to rôles for which there was actual evidence (the previous text was… less selective). However, a later hand seems to have excised the text relating to Cowley entirely, and in the process undone my careful citations — with quotations, no less! — and mis-ref'ed it to Armin's roles instead. “Oh, fie, Miss Susanna!” — if De Quincey will forgive the appropriation — the drive for concision seems to have sacrificed precision here.--Xover 10:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De Quincey will also forgive me for all the opium I smoked (an obvious debt to him, I know). Sorry, I'm rambling off-topic. RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was mis-reffed. The fact that the following sentence about Armin was reffed does not mean that the ref applied to the preceding sentence about Kempe. I've now reffed the Kempe sentence, too–to make it clear. I cut the Cowley information because I did not regard Cowley as a notable enough actor, and I thought the general point had been made sufficiently without the need for further evidence.qp10qp 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry; I'd meant to actually fix this rather then just whine about it! The Chambers cite on Armin was wrong; it talks about Kempe and not Armin (and the quote would have made that clear, which was why I mentioned it above). I've fixed it now; apologies for my sloth (must be the opium ;D). My Shapiro seems to be a different edition: it seems to have the relevant information on pp.221–3 rather then pp.247–9. Could someone with the right edition of 1599 double check that pp.247–9 discusses Armin (the first paragraph should deal with Armin replacing Kempe)?--Xover 17:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Shapiro ref, and it is correct. I've got the Faber hardback.qp10qp 19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and no opinion on Cowley. I didn't add it, I just ref'ed his roles since they were unref'ed and removed the unsupported ones.--Xover 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alfred Pollard termed some of them "bad quartos" because of their impure and often garbled texts. - why were they "impure"? perhaps a little rearrangement of this section would make this clearer
Added a little more.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better, except there are some weird characters there now. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weird characters on Wikipedia? Surely not! Removed.qp10qp 15:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The folio version of King Lear is so different from the 1608 quarto that the two cannot be combined without loss. - "without loss" of what?
I couldn't find a way to word this properly, though I know what I want to say. The plays are structurally different: so it's like sewing two teddy bears together with three ears between them. One ear has to go. Instead I've just noted that the Oxford Shakespeare prints both versions because they are so different.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Hamlet? The "to be or not to be" soliloquy is quite different from quartos to folio. How about something like "the versions are different enough that they cannot be coherently combined" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without loss of material, coherence, or spirit? RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for: "they cannot be conflated without confusion". Harley Granville-Barker is quoted much to this effect in the preface to the Oxford versions.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have a sentence somewhere near the beginning of the "Plays" section that lays out the various periods in Shakespeare's career - it would help guide the reader through the rest of the section - prepare them for what is to come. I'm thinking here of that old standby, the "topic sentence". :)
Can't cram it into one sentence. So I've put a little paragraph at the top of the section.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will move on to other sections later. Please don't hate me - I just want this article to be the absolute best it can be, since it will be one of the most popular literature articles on wikipedia. I appreciate the editors' Herculean efforts here, I really do. Awadewit | talk 21:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate all your close reading. The article is improving as a result of your observations!.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you go ahead. It's all manageable. As you can imagine, there's a great deal on the cutting room floor that can be be looked through again.qp10qp 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rest of the article:

  • Both earned popularity and many reprints during Shakespeare's lifetime. - This doesn't really make any sense.
    • I agree. Can you suggest something? RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Both became popular and were reprinted many times during Shakespeare's lifetime." - Is that what you mean? Awadewit | talk 02:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RedRabbit sorted this. Looks fine to me.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the same problematic sentence to me. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a stab at it. Maybe I'll do better after a full night's sleep. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to: "Both proved popular and were often reprinted during Shakespeare's lifetime."qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*in which a young woman complains of being seduced against her will - "complains"? that whiny bitch :) - seriously, how about something a bit stronger like "laments"?

I've changed to "laments". I had used "complains" because the poem is called A Lover's Complaint.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • in which a young woman laments being taken against her will? I also think the "seduced" is misleading. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is she raped? I haven't read this poem - if she is, that should be stated as such. Awadewit | talk 02:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, she's not raped. She's seduced.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think what is there now is better. ("Complains" just doesn't have the same meaning anymore.) Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Can we change "seduced" to "induced", or something similar? RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now put: "in which a young woman laments her seduction by a persuasive suitor". I know the poem (which is irritating but has some lovely poetry in it) and I feel this sums it up accurately.qp10qp 19:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most scholars now accept that Shakespeare wrote A Lover's Complaint, but critics consider that its successes are marred by leaden effects. - I'm not sure of the logic behind the "but" here
    • Changed to a full stop. Why is "success" in plural? RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. Is that fixed now? Awadewit | talk 02:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plural because there was more than one good thing about it. It is thought to be fine in parts but not a success overall. I think I've improved it now with: "Critics consider that its fine qualities are marred by leaden effects". qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph under "Poems" becomes listy at the end.
  • He seems to have planned two contrasting series: one about uncontrollable lust for a married woman of dark complexion (the "dark lady"), and one about pure love for a fair young man (the "fair youth"); but, despite many theories, it remains unclear if these figures represent real individuals, or if the authorial "I" who addresses them represents Shakespeare himself, though Wordsworth believed that with the sonnets "Shakespeare unlocked his heart". - This sentence is too long - could it be broken up?
  • Whether this was written by Shakespeare himself or by the publisher, Thomas Thorpe, whose initials appear at the foot of the dedication page, is not known; nor is it known who Mr. W.H. was—though theories abound, including that he was the "fair youth" addressed in the text—or whether Shakespeare even authorised the publication. - the last phrase after the dash doesn't quite seem to fit there
RedRabbit has sorted this well, I think.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite these difficulties, critics praise the Sonnets as a profound meditation on the nature of love, sexual passion, procreation, death, and time. - I don't understand the "despite" clause - much literature lacks a known author and no one has trouble saying it is profound. Usually literature is considered profound because of what it says, not who wrote it. :)
    • Agree. "Nevertheless" instead. It conveys the intended spirit. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, we know who wrote the poems but not who wrote the dedication. RedRabbit has copyedited that well, I think.qp10qp 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both “despite” and “nevertheless” imply a contrastive connection with the preceeding, but there is no contradiction. The relevant sentence is somewhat non sequitur there, which is why you're having a hard time tying it to the rest of the text (and introducing artifical formalities like “nevertheless”). I would suggest moving the sentence up to be the second(ish) sentence of the paragraph, or even deleting it alltogether.--Xover 09:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought there was a contrast: there are problems with the interpretation but critics are still able to appreciate the poems. "But", however, is too strong for the sentence (in the article) and misleading. "Neverthless" need not imply contradiction, only contrast. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Xover, thanks for explaining that better than I could. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut "nevertheless".qp10qp 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Style" is a bit vague - it is still not entirely clear to me what the "traditional" style was.
I've added some more.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it only appear stilted to us or was it considered stilted at the time? Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern critics have described it as stilted. The others, though, are in a better position to answer this. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Stilted" is the word used by Frye. His book was the best I could find on this early stuff. I read the play as well, and I agree with him: the verse is remarkably stilted (yet the comic prose is so good that some people suspect it was written later). Shakespeare is praised so often in our article that it does no harm to give him a knock or two, I feel. I've added a couple of modifying phrases to filter the remarks through critics. qp10qp 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain blank verse and iambic pentameter - few people know what they are.
Yeah, me included. I've now explained it as far as I understand it, which isn't that far. qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of "literary terms" books out there. Here is a pretty good website - [1]. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Iambic pentameter: a meter of five iambs (da Dum's)
  • Blank verse: unrhymed iambic pentameter? (I'm too tired to look it up). RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A ten-pound note to anyone who can explain this clearly to the readers in one sentence.qp10qp 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something like: "Blank verse is unrhymed poetry, generally consisting, in Shakespeare, of ten-syllable lines divided into five units of unstressed and stressed syllables (or iambs). Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think QP's version is fine and less wordy for our purposes, or whoever made the version that is on now. Wrad 20:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit, I'm afraid I can't give you the tenner for that. The average reader won't know what "five units of unstressed and stressed syllables (or iambs)" means. Unless George Orwell turns up, I think my money is safe. qp10qp 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Blank verse is unrhymed poetry, usually consisting of ten-syllable lines divided into five units of one unaccented and one accented syllable called an iamb." Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting better, but I think the present explanation in the article (which is there thanks to you, so your point has been addressed, even if simplistically) is kinder to the readers (Shakespeare's standard poetic form was blank verse, composed in iambic pentameter. In practice, this meant that his verse was usually unrhymed and consisted of ten syllables to a line). I've never found that those accent-stress-syllable-iamb explanations really help when, as a layman, you apply them to the actual lines. And I've read the wonderful Playing Shakespeare by John Barton, which is about speaking the poetry. Even with a monosyllabic line ("In sooth I know not why I am so sad"), the units and iambs are not clear, and they are even harder to make out when punctuation interferes ("Which, hearing them, would call their brothers fools"). This might only be because we speak poetry differently these days. If a reader (and there are those who would) took your explanation above and tried to apply it to a line of the poetry, I think they would come unstuck, as I always do when trying to make sense of the standard explanations.qp10qp 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does blank verse have to be explained when it is linked to a Wikipedia article that explains it? The Marlowe entry doesn't explain blank verse, nor any of the other playwrights who used it, and this article is just a summary. It doesn't come close to comprehensively explaining how Shakespeare developed his use of blank verse, nor should it, IMO. Tom Reedy 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article should at least attempt to explain blank verse because it is integral to Shakespeare's style. I dislike relying on readers' initiative to click on a link. Again, my cynicism popping to the surface. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a friend who has published several academic books about metre. I'll ask him for some help. Tom Reedy 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is his reply to my request for a one-sentence, easily-understood definition of blank verse:
  • That's easy: blank verse is unrhymed iambic pentameter. The hard part is defining iambic pentameter; it took me a whole book (Strange Music: The Metre of the English Heroic Line). It's available on Amazon. In case you're wondering, "heroic line" is just a non-prejudicial way of referring to iambic pentameter, but I rather wish I hadn't used the term, because it's caused endless confusion to librarians.
  • So I doubt if we're going to come up with a satisfactory comprehensive definition in one or two sentences if he can't do it. Tom Reedy 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we scared of de-dum-de-dum-de-dumming? Are we afraid it won't come over as academic enough? "This meant that his verse was usually unrhymed, and consisted of ten-syllable lines with a de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum rythm (e.g. In sooth I know not why I am so sad)." People tend to get it if you explain it like that. John Barton does, and it can be sourced from his book if a footnote is needed. Do I win £10? AndyJones 07:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that so many of Shakespeare's lines don't readily fit a de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum rhythm. At random:
That I did love the moor to live with him
My downright violence and storm of fortunes
May trumpet to the world. My heart's subdued
Even to the very quality of my lord.
The first and third line, yes. But can we make de-dum work with the second and fourth lines? You would get stresses on viol, and, of, ven, the, y, it, and of. These are hard to stress when spoken; and I don't see them as hidden stresses either. It may be just that I don't get it; but I doubt I'd be the only one to furrow my brow at such an explanation.qp10qp 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second line has 11, not 10, syllables. It is a good example of why one size does not fit all when trying to describe Shakespeare's style. While it is true that iambic pentameter is the foundation of his style, he took what he learned from Marlowe (which was the use of feminine endings) and developed it much further. Often the line begins with a trochee instead of an iamb, and often it ends with an unstressed extra syllable.
For a good discussion of this, see Timberlake's The Feminine Ending in English Blank Verse, 1931, and Wright's Shakespeare's Metrical Art, 1988.
How is this for a definition:
Written speech, divided into unrhymed lines of ten (occasionally eleven) syllables, each line consisting mainly of five pairs of syllables, and each pair usually, but not always, having an unaccented syllable followed by an accented one. The accented syllables are manipulated to vary the degree of emphasis as a way to signify importance, and the result is a rhythm that's pleasing to the ear when spoken aloud.
As I said, I'm all for relying on the link. I doubt any reader who needs an explanation is going to understand it from any short definition we come up with. Tom Reedy 12:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. According to Russ McDonald in Shakespeare's Late Style, one in three lines of Shakespeare's late romances have more than ten syllables—some have thirteen.qp10qp 13:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum-de-dum is what "iambic pentameter" means. Your criticisms of my explanation of it demonstrate not that my explanation is wrong, but, if anything, that the article is wrong when it says that Shakespeare wrote in iambic pentameter. [Andy's comment]
Andy is right. Although Shakespeare did vary his meter, iambic pentameter is as Andy said. It would be absurd to say, for example, "Shakespeare wrote in 13-syllable iambic pentameter;" which would abuse the very origin of the name. RedRabbit 17:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm just desperately trying to avoid paying out ten quid, all right?qp10qp 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; thinking that a definition of blank verse explains Shakespeare's metrical style is a delusion. Actually, what Shakespeare did was compress 11 and sometimes 11 1/2 syllables into 10, and he would often stretch out one syllable for an entire foot. He didn't do this just to be doing it: the positions of the stresses in the line and the variation in the number of syllables was for emotional effect, a type of aural code that the mind picks up and translates into emotional responses. While the de-dum example is a flat representation of iambic pentameter, it is akin to declaring that there is only one shade of red or blue or any other color.
All this discussion underscores the futility of trying to comprehensively explain Shakespeare's use of verse in a short sentence or even a short paragraph. All we can offer is a generalization, and not a very useful one at that. About all you can say is he began with rhyming verse, he moved on to blank verse, he followed Marlowe in varying the verse, and then later developed it into an instrument that no one has been able to duplicate. Tom Reedy 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's like saying that a waltz goes bom-ching-ching, bom-ching-ching. It's kind-of true, but it hardly conveys the beauty of the thing. AndyJones 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't understand iambic pentameter and blank verse, let them follow those wikilinks. Putting "dum dee dum" in the article is unencyclopedic. Hate to say this, but people are overthinking some aspects of this article. Let the dum dee dum go. There should be a limit to how much we "dum" down things around here :-).--Alabamaboy 10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, AB. Wikipedia is not My First Reference Book. If we feel compelled to explain this, why stop there? Why not explain the terms "rhyme" and "rhythm?" Why not define what verse is? I think since Awadewit has struck the topic, we should let it rest. Tom Reedy 11:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This technique releases the increased power and flexibility of the poetry in plays such as Julius Caesar and Hamlet. - vague - how does this work? an example, perhaps?
It can only be illustrated with long examples. I'm not sure that would help. I will try to think of a better way of putting it.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His verse has greater majesty and scope in his tragedies, compared with his early plays. I don't have a source at hand and can't think of a specific example. I'm sure Qp10qp will come up with something tomorrow. RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Hamlet quote used by Watkins in his discussion of the matter. This is by no means an easy part of the article to make clear. The point that Shakespeare took one major stylistic step forward with Julius Caesar and Hamlet and then another with the next five tragedies is difficult to put over and possibly little known. But I'm convinced it's worth it because that's what the critics say; and it would be nice if GCSE students, etc. could pick this up from our article. I hadn't realised until I started researching for this article that the stylistic differences between the early verse of say Two Gentlemen and that of The Tempest are really quite staggering. I'm in no doubt that Shakespeare deliberately pushed the boundaries, and that we have to make a stab at mapping the transitions.qp10qp 17:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the space is worth the effort. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare "mingles everything...runs line into line, embarrasses sentences and metaphors". - What does Lamb mean by "embarrasses"? I don't think it is clear out of context.
I've cut this for something based on McDonald.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So much better. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Lamb meant, but his quote does have a certain charm (for me, though, probably not the general audience). RedRabbit 14:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lamb was actually comparing Shakespeare's style to Fletcher's more orderly image development. I think it would have been clearer if the next clause had been included: " . . . before one idea has burst its shell, another is hatched and clamours for disclosure." It means that Shakespeare's late style was far more complex and used more run-over lines, double endings, trochees, omitted syllables, elliptical constructions, redundancies, etc. Tom Reedy 03:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his late romances, he deliberately returned to a more artificial style. - Again, is there a way to explain "artificial", what was not considered negative at the time?
I've added that it emphasised the illusion of theatre.qp10qp 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shakespeare wrote some of the most admired plays in Western literature, with Hamlet, King Lear, and Macbeth rated among the world's greatest. - Rated by whom? This suggests a "U.S. News" type of thing to me.
    • Someone can find a citation for it. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut it, with great pleasure. It's a leftover from the bad old days of meaningless puffing. The top of that section is left ragged, though, so I'll fix it tomorrow.qp10qp 06:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done the latter now.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank the gods! A much-needed cut. Tom Reedy 05:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Influence" section, be sure to identify writers a bit - not all of the names will resonate with readers - at least something like "American novelist", for example.
Identified Melville and Freud.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dickens often quoted Shakespeare, drawing 25 of his titles from his works - the "his"'s (how do you make that plural?) don't work out grammatically
All good FACs should have an opium-eating rabbit on hand, I've decided.qp10qp 00:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critic Harold Bloom claims that Shakespeare has influenced not only language but identity. "All of us," he writes, "were, to a shocking degree, pragmatically reinvented by Shakespeare".[150] He points to Sigmund Freud's use of Shakespearean psychology, in particular that of Hamlet, in his theories of human nature. He goes so far as to call Shakespeare, rather than Freud, "the inventor of psychoanalysis". - This is a typically ridiculous statement by Bloom. Must it be included? Who else agrees with him, for example? Is this a mainstream view?
    • I don't like Bloom either. Though, it's for the others to decide. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never heard that it was ridiculous. I've heard it in my college classes (and not as a joke). It may be unique, but it is famous and referenced pretty often. I think it deserves a spot. Wrad 02:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever heard it ridiculed, I'm afraid. I think it does matter if it is a unique statement. Bloom does not have enough authority on Shakespeare to render his statements all that interesting (he's a Romanticist) and he is not important enough to render his statements interesting (he is not T. S. Eliot, for example). Barring those two exceptions, his statement should reflect some sort of scholarly consensus. I'm not convinced that consensus exists. Awadewit | talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I. Sorry, I have a pet hate of Harold Bloom. RedRabbit 11:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it either, so I've cut it. The edit has had the side-benefit of bringing the section down to an encyclopedic length.qp10qp 21:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Critical reception" section, it would be a good idea to identify people and eras being mentioned more exactly (when was the "Restoration", for example - few people know that, I'm afraid).
    • I don't agree about identifying eras—links do that. RedRabbit 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I should have been clearer. I did not mean include the description in the link; I meant, describe when the era was in the prose (ex: "During the late seventeenth century, Restoration authors embraced classicism") or describe the person in the prose (ex: "the French philosopher Voltaire" or "the French novelist Victor Hugo"). Awadewit | talk 02:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I misread your reply. I think that this article contains far too many links to expect readers to click on every link that they don't know - I think helping them out is a bit is only a courtesy. Awadewit | talk 02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through it adding identification here and there.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among his supporters were Voltaire, Goethe, Stendhal and Victor Hugo. - "supporters" seems an odd word here since you haven't mentioned the great Shakespeare wars (another place where it might be a good idea to label people with a phrase)
I've called them "writers" and changed it to say that they were among those who championed Shakespeare.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the "Speculation" section. These sections are so small that I fail to see why they can't be integrated into the article (other speculation, such as what happened during the "lost years", is integrated). Separating these topics out gives them a primacy that I am unconvinced they deserve.
We intend to do this; but in my opinion FAC is not the time. As you know, the section is a way of corralling the operations of the POV pushers. A move now might bring that contingent out fighting and disrupt the FAC. The section is a wiki-compromise, but it has helped stabilise the article; and in my opinion it doesn't offend any of the FAC criteria. My proposal is that we work on this after the FAC.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(And therein lies the trouble with compromise and consensus!) Since this is going to be done later, I withdraw that objection. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I myself think that integrating them into the article gives them more legitimacy, which is why I like them clearly labeled as speculation instead of biography. Tom Reedy 06:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But so much in the article proper is speculation, too. The most logical arrangement for the page, as it now stands, is to remove all of that speculation to the "Speculation" section. One can use good diction to convey which bits of information are more speculative or outlandish than other bits. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think the difference is that the speculation in the article proper is informed speculation, some based on early biographical reports, while most of the three topics in the speculation section are fantasy based on reading biography into the works. Religion is a partial exception if discussed in the context of the era and the few facts presented in the section (the interpretations of which are vigorously disputed), but it, too, sips strongly from the literary cup. I think in the end after FAC a religion section could be hammered out, but the other two I think should always be separate from the biography. Tom Reedy 04:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least we are trying to achieve the same goal - point out how very speculative these other claims are. I just think that giving them their own sections actually lends more legitimacy to their claims - even if one doesn't read the whole article and only skims the headings, these topics will jump out as important whereas if they were included in the main body of the prose they would not have the same weight. At least that is how I see it. Awadewit | talk 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about including a separate section listing all of the major works of Shakespeare scholarship? Or simply the ones consulted for this article? Such sections are incredibly helpful to the reader who wants to know what works to read on an author and also helps them determine the credibility of the article at a glance. Poring over the notes is more difficult. Or perhaps another page entitled "Sources on Shakespeare" akin to General relativity resources?
    • I began a section by adding the obvious sources to it, but it may need more. I know QP has expressed an interest in creating an article like the one you're suggesting... Wrad 05:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't "Further reading" imply the sources weren't used in the article? Awadewit | talk 07:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought you'd say that, but what else do we call it? Besides, these are all books, and we have narrowed all refs to them down to page numbers, so this really is further reading beyond what we have refferred them to, pointing them to the entire book. I don't think it implies anything untrue. Wrad 15:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would call it a "bibliography". I was suggesting that you list all of your major references as well as other helpful books. Awadewit | talk 20:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Guillaume has changed the other title to "List of works", this could be called "Bibliography". But even though I usually believe in such sections in articles, I am strongly opposed to one in this article because it will slow the page download speed too much if it grows to any useful length. William Shakespeare is not a normal article: the list would be enormous.
The solution is clear, in my opinion: we need a list on a separate page. There is no rhyme or reason to having a partial list on the article page. When people look at it, it will be pot luck whether the book they are looking for is there. We might have, say, Schoenbaum on it; but would we have Hoeniger, for example, who is only reffed once in the article? I doubt it: but Hoeniger is the key scholar for Pericles. And we could logically add the few key scholars we have not cited (Stephen Booth, Granville-Barker, John Dover Wilson spring to mind) if the list were placed on a separate page.qp10qp 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be behind a separate page - it is certainly warranted. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only major omission that I see in the article right now is that there is no mention of Shakespeare as a political playwright. His histories, for example, are commentaries on contemporary political events. It would seem to me that a hint of that should be in the article.
The article does say that the early histories have been seen as justifying the Tudor usurpation. We could add that Henry V might reflect the Essex campaign to Ireland, or that Macbeth is sympathetic to James I. Is that the sort of thing you mean?qp10qp 01:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...And the ancedote about Essex staging Richard II before his failed rebellion. Queen Elizabeth, I believe, said something like, "I am not Richard II". RedRabbit 03:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's "I am Richard II..." AndyJones 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - some tidbits that will convey that Shakespeare's plays were social and political commentaries. I took a whole class on Shakespeare and politics, so I was struck with the lack of references to that issue. The article seemed to reflect "New Criticism" (in the very best sense) more than any other interpretative framework. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all done (for now!). Kudos to the editors - they should all get barnstars - who are the major editors, by the way? Awadewit | talk 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you go strictly by edit count, which sometimes is misleading, but in this case is at least roughly accurate, here are the top five editors: 1. Qp10qp 2. Alabamaboy 3. AndyJones 4. Wrad 5. RedRabbit1983. The push for FAC was a product of a collaboration from the entire Shakespeare WikiProject, though. Other editors, such as Xover and Tom Reedy helped a lot with copyediting. GuilliameTell (sp?) as well. Wrad 05:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handing out barnstars now. Wonderful work all. Awadewit | talk 04:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should invent a new award for all the work qp10qp did on the plays, performances, and style sections. I honestly don't understand how he pulled it all together in that short a time. Tom Reedy 06:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about the double barnstar of high culture? RedRabbit 17:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After the Lord Chamberlain's Men were renamed the King's Men in 1603, they entered a special relationship with the new King James. Wasn't it the other way round: they changed their name after entering a special relationship with King James? RedRabbit 15:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we restore "winding down"? "Slowing down" doesn't work for me. RedRabbit 16:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to find a better wording for it. The point is that after they became the king's official acting company under the new name, they often performed at the palace, wore the royal livery etc.qp10qp 17:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say, "The Lord Chamberlain's Men were renamed the King's Men in 1603, in honour of their new patron, King James"? Then the following sentence can explicate this relationship. RedRabbit 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it. See how that works. Tom Reedy 17:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to a different sentence. RedRabbit 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, then. I changed the Chamberlain's Men --> King's Men sentence to say they received a royal patent. They didn't change their name "in honor of" the king; they actually became members of the royal household. Tom Reedy 18:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know what happened. I just objected to the "after changing they entered a special relationship", which suggested improper logical sequence. RedRabbit 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't the Greene quote be consistent in its language? As it stands, only the "Tygers hart" phrase is contemporary; the rest has been modernized. Tom Reedy 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent in modern spelling or Elizabethen? RedRabbit 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, as long as it's consistent. I changed it to the original a long time ago, but somebody changed it back. I don't care which style is used, but I think it should be consistent throughout. Tom Reedy 18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it consistent. Can we discuss editing on the article talk page, please? qp10qp 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was starting to feel high and mighty pontificating on this article from the review page. I'll come back down to the talk page now. RedRabbit 19:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When will this article be promoted? RedRabbit 05:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul usually gives articles at least couple of weeks. It's not just a matter of achieving support but of giving editors enough time to comment. Patience, Sir Rabbit.qp10qp 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Sigh* If I must be. I'll nibble a carrot in the meantime. RedRabbit 10:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's only a matter of time before this page is closed. Goodbye, FAC. RedRabbit 16:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmebot isn't functioning at the moment. So Sandy and co are having to do everything by hand. Many thanks to them and to everyone who has commented here.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/William_Shakespeare&oldid=1138475676"