Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hamlet/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Hamlet

Hamlet edit

This is the most recent collaboration of the Shakespeare WikiProject on the way to FA status. Ideas for improvement to that end will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Wrad 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the incorrect hyphens to endashes on page number ranges in the citations. Also, review all image caption puncuation per WP:MOS#Captions and solo years shouldn't be linked unless the year article give specific WP:CONTEXT for this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for minor issues of grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Outriggr

Wow, you'd think this topic would garner more peer review. At the moment I am looking at the section Religious [contexts] and have a few small comments:

  • "In the First Quarto, the same line reads..." A bit rough as a new paragraph, being a continuation of the previous thought, but then I can also see why this choice was made.
    • I rearranged some things to make the paragraphs more logical. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The play's Protestantism lies in its location in Denmark"... abstract "lies" and concrete "location" are jarring. Could this be reworded?
    • Changed to "derives from" Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • “unfit 'to keepe subjects in obedience to their sovereigns”... is the apostrophe misplaced?
    • Yep. Fixed. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that both types of quotation marks, curly and straight, were present, and the search and replace might as well be done now if you're submitting to FAC. :)
Thanks for the Shakespeare articles. –Outriggr § 03:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like you fixed that last one. Wrad 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'll keep adding comments here:

  • "This same line of Hamlet's also introduces theories of existentialism." I think there is a better word here than "theories", and can it be made clearer that existentialism wasn't...existential...at the time?
  • "Hamlet is perhaps most affected by the prevailing scepticism in Shakespeare's day in response to the Renaissance's humanism." This strictly says "Hamlet is affected ... in reponse to ... humanism", so shouldn't it be reworded with a ", which was a response to..." or such?
  • "They argued that man was the God's greatest creation." Do you intend "the God's" here?
  • Not sure about formatting the words that link to a speech, but I would think that "What a piece of work is a man" is better with quotes. (Did this myself in this section.)
  • I don't follow the argument in "A double-meaning can be read into the word 'is'..."—which could be my fault—but it is very Bill Clinton-esque. :) –Outriggr § 05:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Roger Davies edit

  • I've started a copy edit, which'll take another day or two.
  • I'll mention copy matters arising on the talk page.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Roger, are you still copy editing? If so, I'll try to avoid that area in my review, as I sure you have that well in hand. Awadewit | talk 10:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. It's been a nightmare week real-life-wise and I haven't been able to devote a big slug of uninterrupted time to it. Things get better tomorrow.--ROGER DAVIES talk 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review
  • This article is well-referenced and extremely comprehensive (perhaps too comprehensive, in fact). It seems undecided whether it is aimed at general readers or the specialist. There is so much supporting material in sub-articles that I think this ought to be limited to introducing the play and the main veins of scholarship to the general reader. Clear focus will make editorial decisions about inclusion/exclusion of material easier.
  • The lead dwells on a few main points. As some of these are out of context, the general reader is easily confused. Instead, it needs to introduce the content in general terms (for example, referring to Hamlet's origins in legend and the Ur-Hamlet in brief outline only). It needs an one-line summary of the play's plot in the opening paragraph. [Done-RD]
  • The "Sources", "Date" and "Texts" sections are each long and, because of their close reference to plot elements, should follow the synopsis (as they discuss plot points before they have been introduced). This will help cut down on duplication. (I'll move the sections about shortly.{Done.-RD])
  • "Sources" is better in two parts - legend and Ur-Hamlet - for digestability. [Done-RD]
  • "Date" has been the subject of discussion; consensus seems to be for a brief summary of a sub-article.
  • "Texts" is again long. Strangely, there is no discussion of length of the play (most of its contemporaries ran about two hours) or what the implications of this are.
  • "Synopsis" is choppy and can be much more tightly written.[Done a quick CE. More later-RD]
  • "Analysis and criticism" is repetitive, repeating material that appears further on.
  • "19th century" doesn't follow chronological order. It might be better divided into main tours, major performances and (perhaps) literary influence paragraphs.
  • "20th century" overemphasises the first half of the century and again doesn't follow strict chronological order.
  • The article contains many act/scene/line references (3.2.87–93, for instance) that don't appear to be tied into an edition. These would be better footnoted.
  • "Philosophical" doesn't distinguish between philosophies Shakespeare is believed to allude to, and modern philosophical overlays. The "To be or not to be" paragraph is obtuse.
  • "Political" doesn't mention Shakespeare's astuteness in blowing with the prevailing political wind (Henry V, Richard III etc). Even when he satirises, he pokes fun rather than savages.
  • Alas! Poor Yorick is sidelined. Which is pity. The skull scene is highly memorable (and often lampooned). (Never mind.)
  • A specific reference to Shakespeare's depth of characterisation of Hamlet is needed (because it is this that makes the various analyses possible).
  • The early editions are variously initial caps and lowercase. (I'll make these more consistent later today.)

--ROGER DAVIES talk 07:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He he. We mentioned a lot of the same things. :) Great minds think alike. Awadewit | talk 08:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[Chuckle] Indeed.--ROGER DAVIES talk 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda
  • "Madness" I'm not sure this is adequately explored. Shakespeare uses madness frequently for a variety of reasons: dramatic tension from the conflict that arises; psychological study as with Gloucester; humour as with Malvolio's perceived madness. Hamlet needs to be viewed as part of the larger landscape.
  • We used to have a Themes section where themes like this were discussed in depth, but we decided to remove the section and let the Critical approaches to Hamlet article cover the specifics. The article was getting too big. We just want it to provide an overview of criticism and critical approaches, not look at themes in depth. -- Wrad (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Revenge tragedy" is a specific genre which Hamlet postdates.
--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's true, but what are you getting at? -- Wrad (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether to characterise it it as a tragedy or a revenge tragedy. I prefer the former as the latter is a specific genre into which Hamlet doesn't happily fit. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with me. I think we go into more detail in the sources section on that anyway. Wrad (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit edit

Very impressive article! Here are my comments.

  • The lead assumes the reader knows Hamlet; some sentences regarding the plot need to be inserted early on.
  • I think we need the date of the play in the first paragraph.
  • With 4,042 lines and 29,551 words, and taking over four hours to deliver, Hamlet is also Shakespeare's longest play. - These details are best left to the body of the article, in my opinion.
  • Many readers of this page will be unfamiliar with Hamlet, so I would suggest putting the plot synopsis first. The "Sources" and "Date" sections would be easier to follow if one has read the synopsis.
  • "Any dating of Hamlet must be tentative", Edwards cautions. Scholars date the play between 1599 and 1601. - I feel like these ending sentences should come first in "Date" and then the detailed explanation - the thesis and then the evidence, so to speak.
  • Agreed and done. Some of the footnote stuff can be moved into the body too.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Another theory holds that Q1 is an abridged version of the full-length play intended especially for travelling productions (the aforementioned university productions, in particular). - What university productions?
  • Claudius is the King of Denmark, elected to the throne after the death of his brother, King Hamlet. - Was he really "elected" to the throne?
    • Yes, discussed briefly here, and here. AndyJones 12:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interestingly, Scandanavian monarchs are still elected, though these days it's in the form of ratification by parliament of the heir apparent.--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critics in Shakespeare's day focused on these themes in their understanding of the play; these aspects were portrayed more violently than they would come to be in subsequent times. - This sentence shifts between what critics thought of "these themes" and the portrayal of violence. This is too big a shift, in my opinion.
  • I think what this means is that critics of the day were mesmerised by the madness, which was acted up at the time, to the exclusion of all else. Is this right? --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Copyeditors mistakenly combined two unrelated facts. Originally, this was two different statements: 1) Critics in Shakespeare's day focused on Hamlet's madness and melancholy more than anything else, and 2) Performances of the play at the time were more violent than in later periods. Wrad (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 19th century saw critics focused on Hamlet's individual drive and internal struggle; he came to be regarded as a political rebel and intellectual rather than an over-sensitive melancholic. - The comparison is unclear - when was he viewed as oversensitive melancholic?
This sound right? "Tender and nobly descended, this royal flower [Hamlet] grew up under the direct influences of majesty; the idea of the right and of princely dignity, the feeling for the good and the graceful, with the consciousness of his high birth, were unfolded in him together. He was a prince, a born prince. Pleasing in figure, polished by nature, courteous from the heart, he was to be the model of youth and the delight of the world.... A beautiful, pure, noble and most moral nature, without the strength of nerve which makes a hero, sinks beneath a burden which it can neither bear nor throw off...." Goethe, Wilhelm Meister, Book V, 1795--ROGER DAVIES talk 14:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a copyediting error. The original idea was that the Romantic period viewed Hamlet as an internal, individual play, and also saw Hamlet as a hero despite his faults. Wrad (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamlet departed from contemporary convention. - As the first sentence of a section, this sentence needs to say in what he departed from convention.
  • This refers to the play not the person though I've clarified it anyway. I'll put the play title in quotemarks throughout later to better disambiguate, unless there's been a discussion elsewhere to the contrary.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Caption: Hamlet's statement in this scene that his dark clothing is merely an outward representation of his inward grief is an example of his strong rhetorical skill. - Which scene?
    • The scene in the picture. It wasn't meant to refer to a scene in the play. Wrad (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Somehow that must be made clearer. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC
  • The "Language" section probably needs examples to demonstrate to readers the various styles it outlines.
  • All quotations from the play need line numbers and there needs to be some sort of indication which edition they are being cited from.
  • If we can arrive at consensus over the edition, I'll order it and do this myself.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • I have the Arden, if that works for everyone. It is an excellent edition. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the 2006 Arden also. I can deal with this unless Roger would like to order the book anyway. I also own the second volume, which will be good for F-only (or even Q1-only) quotations. AndyJones (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be grateful if you did it, Andy. I'll order the book anyway.--ROGER DAVIES talk 12:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilco. I'll have a look in the next few minutes. AndyJones (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you have a look at the way I've done those first few cites and let me know if that's the right way to lay it out, in your opinion? If no, feel free to adjust and I'll use your alternative. I'm off Wikipedia for a few hours, from now. AndyJones (talk) 13:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps say the "Arden Hamlet" but otherwise fine. It might be appropriate to replace the textual refs with handmade cites (ie "a" next to the text and a "aArden Hamlet 2:2:34") in their own Citations section. It's a bit of fuss but it looks very elegant. Feelings? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let that get discussed here, I think: I'm not up to the technical aspects of achieving it. I'll work through the article and check the citations, then allow others to decide on the best format for them. AndyJones (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done. At least, I've done what I've just said I would do, with every quotation I saw on scanning through, fairly quickly. AndyJones (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psychologists have since associated heavy punning with schizophrenia. - Why is this included?
  • It asks more questions than it answers ("Oi! What's this about schizophrenia I thought you said he was oedipal"). I'll remove it.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • One of the more famous lines in the play related to Protestantism is - The article must explain why these quotations are related to Protestantism.
    •   Done Explained. Wrad (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link between predestination and individual conscience is not clear in the "Religion" section.
    • I'm not sure what you mean. Wrad (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link between the two concepts - it seemed like the article was trying to link them. Awadewit | talk 23:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even today, scholars continue to debate the importance of the religious context on Hamlet. - This is an empty sentence - it provides no real meaning.
    • What do you do with a meaningless sentence? You remove it!   Done Wrad (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A double-meaning can be read into the word "is", which introduces the question of whether anything "is" or can be if thinking does not make it so. This is tied into his "To be, or not to be" speech, where "to be" can be read as being or existing. - Poorly explained
  • If Montaigne isn't a direct influence on Shakespeare, I'm not sure the extensive quotation from him is justified.
  • During this period, political satire was discouraged and many notable playwrights were punished for "offensive" works - At the beginning of a section, restate the referent - which period?
  • I'll fix this later. I want to abbreviate the material about Burghley and Polonius, undue weight etc. There's material about Anne of Demark that could be consolidated there too.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Done.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • The "Political" section is a bit tediously laid out (first, second, third, fourth, etc.). Also, why is the Oxford issue brought up at this point and not refuted?
  • "Other interpretations" is not a very informative section heading.
  • Changed to Context and interpretation, and moved it further up the hierarchy.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Hamlet is torn between love adultery and hate incest as he scolds his mother for her sexual relationship with Claudius while simultaneously wishing (unconsciously) that he could take Claudius' place. - Needs to be reworded for clarity.
  • The psychoanalytic section promises Freud and Lacan, but we only get Freud. I understand the editors' wariness in tackling Lacan, however a promise unfulfilled....
  • Chuckle. On the to do list. --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Lacan now added. I have been stalled on this as the great difficulty here was providing a clear brief summary that covered the essentials (which may be a forlorn hope). I could easily have written five times more and made it no more accessible for the general reader. I didn't, for instance, tie need, demand and desire into the Real, the Imaginary and the Symbolic nor did I properly explain phallus. Best, I think, is to whet the appetite, with sources indicating routes for further exploration.
  • Explaining "the Real" is fruitless. Awadewit | talk 11:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also, I think, undue weight (in terms of relative length) on Freud. This is not to downplay his contribution but is instead a reflection of overall space constraints.
--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Feminist critics have focused on the gender system of early modern England, pointing to the common trinity of maid, wife or widow, with whores alone outside the stereotype. - Very abrupt beginning to the "feminist" section. Lead the reader in.
  • Now done. I consolidated material from an earlier section, with the happy outcome of a prefabricated lead.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Shakespeare provides no clear indication of when his play is set but, following the theatrical conventions of the time, it would have been performed at the Globe in Elizabethan dress. - The logical connection between these two clauses is weak.
    • Yes, this is one of those communal-editing problems. Gary Taylor (the source) says something along the lines of the story being set several centuries earlier but being performed in what was then modern dress. Another editor comes along and, disagreeing (perhaps reasonably) with the assertion that Hamlet is set at any particular time, changes the first half of the sentence, leaving two unrelated thoughts behind. -- AndyJones (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, here's what Taylor actually says: "Although the plot (like the source story) belongs to an epoch many centuries before, when England paid tribute to Denmark, the characters wear Elizabethan clothes."
      • I assume, though, that Taylor has give more background on Elizabethan theatre at that point, so the sentence makes more sense in context. In the Hamlet article, the reader cannot be assumed to have knowledge of Elizabethan theatre, so I think a sentence explaining the assumption behind the statement is warranted. Awadewit | talk 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In stark contrast, William Poel's production of the first quarto text in 1881 was an early attempt at reconstructing Elizabethan theatre conditions; he set the play against red curtains. - I don't see the connection between these two clauses.
    • Here is the rather longer thought which I was trying to embody when I wrote that sentence: In stark contract to the "pictorial" style of Shakespeare which was all the rage at the time, in which lavish sets and costumes were the norm, scene changes were lengthy and cumbersome, and music and tableux were inserted frequently; Poel was one of the first to attempt a performance in a "reconstructive" style where Elizabethan stage conditions would prevail: costumes would be simple, there would be no representational scenery, and the action would flow continously and at pace (the choice of the shortest text, Q1, adding to that last effect). To that end, the play was presented simply against a backdrop which consisted just of a pair of red curtains. -- AndyJones (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about something like this: "In stark contrast, William Poel's production of the first quarto text in 1881 was an early attempt at reconstructing Elizabethan theatre conditions; to achieve this effect, he used only a set of red curtains rather than the ornate sets typical of the nineteenth century." Awadewit | talk 21:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've condensed this a bit to avoid duplication with the previous sentence.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • Most of the illustrations need artist information.
  • The highest-grossing Hamlet adaptation to-date is Disney's Academy Award-winning animated feature The Lion King: although, as befits the genre, the play's tragic ending is avoided.[144] - Whose opinion is it that tragedy shouldn't happen in animated features? Bambi, anyone? This is highly POV, in my opinion.
    • I don't think it's just talking about tragic endings. It's talking about the specific ending of Hamlet, where everybody dies through various intrigues. That would definitely be a bit over the top in a movie about cute little lions (or deer). However, it does sound like OR to me, a bit. -- Wrad (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the tragedy bit out. Wrad (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neat fix. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to these adaptations, there are numerous references to Hamlet in other works of art. - Empty sentence.
    • I'd suggest we lose it. Not only is it an empty sentence, as Awadewit rightly identifies, but also its raison d'etre is to link to References to Hamlet: an article which I don't really approve of linking to from the main article when it's in such dreadfully poor shape. AndyJones (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link is valuable because someday that page may be good. I don't think we can institute a policy of not linking to poor pages, since most wikipedia pages aren't very good yet. :) Awadewit | talk 03:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The link is available in the template at the bottom. Since there isn't any way to work it into prose well, I'd also suggest we remove it. Wrad (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Sources" section needs to be summarized even further, I think; there is still too much detail in it (although I personally love the detail, I wonder about our readers).
  • I've done this now. I've mostly removed "parallels" as they require close understanding of the plot. They can in any event be found in the supporting articles. I've also restructed the article slightly to try to improve the flow. My apologies if this has ruffled feathers; I thought long and hard about reducing the length and this seemed the best way forward. ROGER DAVIES]] talk 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 19th-century performance section becomes a list of names and is not ordered logically - Booth returns, for example
  • FWIW, I don't think the lack of chronology in these sections is necessarily wrong: I started drafting them in chronological order and realised that by doing so I was producing an illogical sequence: leaping from continent to continent and from topic to topic, which I fixed by pulling together Japanese productions, political productions, North American productions, psychological productions, whatever, just using the chronology as the marker to put those sections in order. The reappearance of Booth didn't seem illogical to me when I wrote it, I mentioned his birth in the sentence about his father then mentioned his performance later on, in its chronological place. I don't suppose I'm saying anything more than that if this is to be fixed, someone other than me is going to have to do it, since I gave it my best shot the first time around. AndyJones (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. Perhaps it just needs to be structured differently to overcome the feeling that it ought to be chronological. That's the line I have been thinking along anyway. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the 19th and 20th centuries have been re-jigged a bit—mostly using different (themed) groupings—to break up the apparent chronology a bit. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars introduced in the prose must be initially introduced by first and last name and identified by field, so the reader has a reason to trust them. Subsequently, they can be referred to by last name only.
Not yet finished edit
  • Hamlet is a revenge tragedy by William Shakespeare. It is one of his best-known plays, one of the most-quoted works in the English language, and one of the few works universally included on lists of the world's greatest literature. - These opening sentences seemed a little stilted to me. As they are the opening sentences, I think we should strive for eloquence.
  • Yeah. Will leave re-write til later--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • I've started moving stuff into the lead for an eventual rewrite. It'll get worse before it gets better :) --ROGER DAVIES talk
  • In my opinion, there is too much detail on the sources in the lead and not enough detail on other sections of the article. Overall, I think the lead does not reflect the weight given various sections in the article itself.
  • Yeah, when the lead was written the criticism sections weren't fully developed yet. Wrad (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article and very close to FA, in my opinion. After a close copy edit and some further explanation at points, I think it will be ready to take to FAC. Awadewit | talk 00:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've do some of the changes and will do the rest later.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your great work on this, Roger. Awadewit | talk 09:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Just let me know when to reread the entire article again. I know it has changed substantially. I would like to do one more read-through at the end rather than tons of piecemeal checks. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 13:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'll probably be ready middle of next week (18th/19th/20th) for a final re-read. If you could be kind enough to put aside some time for this I'll make sure all my final bits are in place for you. --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm currently in the middle of grading final papers and final exams. I'll need a break after I finish. I think I can get to it by the 21st or 22nd, though. Awadewit | talk 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nit-picking from Unimaginative Username edit

Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed written between 1599 and 1601. -- literally means that W. Shakespeare was written between 1599 and 1601. To say that Hamlet was written between etc., rm the comma. If that sounds funny, go ahead and fill in the ellipsis:

"Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare that is believed to have been written between 1599 and 1601."

. If you still wish to ellipsize the sentence, the comma stays out as in the full-worded example:

"Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare believed written between 1599 and 1601."
I would still keep, at the very least, "to have been", but prefer the full sentence. Usually, brevity is better, but not if it leads either to ambiguity or stumbling. I didn't "fixitmyself" because with so much editing happening, it might be better just to add this input to the mix. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To keep the comma, use "which", which differentiates "it" (the tragedy) from "who" (Shake): "Hamlet is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, which was believed written between 1599 and 1601." Unimaginative Username (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. "William Shakespeare's Hamlet is a tragedy, believed written between 1599 and 1601." --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps the brevity while removing any possible stumbles. Well done, Sir! Unimaginative Username (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hamlet/archive1&oldid=1136085244"