# Talk:The Tempest

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 11 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Supad808.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The first part of the article/the abstract should say why the article is important, what role The Tempest plays in the world. No?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.10 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 

Well, the fourth paragraph in the lead includes "in the 20th century, critics and scholars undertook a significant re-appraisal of the play's value, to the extent that it is now considered to be one of Shakespeare's greatest works."  See also the Afterlife section near the end of the article. --GuillaumeTell 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Introductory text is inconsistent with feminist criticism section. According to intro, "Because of the small role that women play in the story, The Tempest has not attracted much feminist analysis." According to feminist criticism section, "Because of the small role women play in the story in comparison to other Shakespeare plays, The Tempest has attracted much feminist criticism." These statements are contradictory.144.174.255.103 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy Why were these cites and this one deleted? These articles are published in mainstream Shakespearean journals and the book is published by an established publisher. Knitwitted (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to ask these questions on your user talk page; I'm not going to chase you around WP to answer a question you already know the answer to. I suggest you read WP:RS. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

user:Aodhdubh has added some information about the position of The Tempest within the Oxfordian argument that William Shakespeare was not, in fact, the author of most/all of the work normally attributed to him.  Not being an expert in the area, I'm hesitant to revert, but is the Oxfordian authorship theory not considered WP:FRINGE, and thus should probably be avoided here (from the Talk archives it looks like this was discussed fairly extensively in the past, in addition there is a large article, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, dedicated to the subject).  Second, the addition includes "The connection between the play and the 1609 wreck at Bermuda of the Virginia Company's flagship, the Sea Venture (see below), has made it a primary target of proponents of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship as it enables the writing of the play to be firmly dated between September, 1610 and the play's first performance at court on the 1st of November, 1611 (making it impossible that it could have been written, as theorists propose, by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, who died in 1604)."  As written this is (at least) confusing.  As written it would seem that the dates would make it a likely target for the opponents of the Oxfordian theory.  Alternatively this may be intended to mean that the dates make The Tempest at target of the proponents of the Oxfordian theory, in the sense that the play is to be removed from the canon.  Rwessel (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the edit and couldn't quite make out what it was saying. Per WP:ONEWAY I suspect Oxfordian theories should not be mentioned here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The Oxfordian theory might not have rated mention a few years ago, but since it was pushed firmly into the public consciousness in 2011 by the film "Anonymous, and numerous articles in reputable media, not mentioning the critical importance of this particular play in relation to that theory (and redirecting those interested in reading further to the appropriate Wikipedia article) would be a grave omission. As far as it being confusing whether the connection between the 1609 wrecking of the Sea Venture and the play would be attacked by proponents or opponents of the Oxfordian theory, it should be clear that, as the connection enables the date of the writing of the play to be established as between 1610 and 1611...and de Vere (Oxford) died in 1604, it would be the proponents of the Oxfordian theory who would attack the connection between the play and the Sea Venture. Aodhdubh (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
In any case, the sentence about the being target of the proponents needs to be clarified, it is confusing as written.  Just being popularized is not necessarily enough to make the theory non-fringe, consider the popularization of the end-of-the-world-in-2012 "theory" by the eponymous movie, not to mention numerous other references in nominally serious media.  Unless something has changed (and I'm certainly not an expert on the subject), this has always been, and remains, a fringe theory, thus deserving of minimal mention in the main WP article(s).  Rwessel (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the WP:ONEWAY fringe material that I reverted a few days ago, I've reverted the speculation about Shakespeare's use of Agrippa. It appears in a popular newspaper supplement, the author himself writes "I am not a Shakespeare scholar; far from it", and the ideas have received no academic hearing or response, much less is it mentioned in any RS Tempest criticism that I can find. I got a feeling this article needs to be cleaned up; it's been neglected for a few years. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is, of course, not reliable for an article on Shakespeare. It's a piece of journalism, and the text is full of the most basic errors of fact, along with rather bizarre claims, such as the view that Shakespeare's plays were structured as scientific experiment, a distinctly WP:FRINGE view. Paul B (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I notice that a recent change characterises Ariel as "wicked". It's not clear to me how this is justified. I shan't change it, but would welcome the reasoning behind the change. Agingjb (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

While I'm hardly an expert on Shakespeare, crimes committed by Ariel are alluded to (most directly in Prospero closing monologue).  But I'm not sure I've ever heard Ariel described as "wicked", and Ariel's behavior *in* The Tempest is not such.  Rwessel (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The word Prospero (WS) uses is "tricksy". Possibly a good replacement for wicked. Agingjb (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was thinking of "As you from crimes would pardon'd be", in the second to last line of the epilog.  Rwessel (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that is said to the audience, an appeal for applause and approval, like Puck's in MND (there are a few others). But with Shakespeare nothing is necessarily simple. Anyway, I'll wait a bit, and possibly edit wicked to tricksy.Agingjb (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This article does an exceptional job of documenting the various stage and screen adaptions of the Tempest and its history on the stage, and provides sufficient citation of its sources.  While the article is over all very well put together, its sections regarding the play’s themes and critical interpretation of these themes is somewhat thin in comparison to other sections.  Most of the sources in these sections are also more than 10 years old.  A section like Interpretations could certainly be updated, as new interpretations of Shakespeare’s work are constantly arising.  These sections are also not cited as thoroughly as the historical ones.  Although a few offhand comments have escaped citation (a comment about a production in which one actor played three major roles seems to have no origin), the article’s author(s) have done a very good job documenting the history of the play and providing citation for their sources. Mk edwards (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mk edwards and, on behalf of all the editors who have contributed to the article: thanks for the review! You cut straight to the quick with your comments, as the Themes and motifs and Criticism and interpretation sections are what we've previously identified as the weakest parts of the article. Mostly this is because none of the editors who've worked on the article are particularly oriented towards literary criticism (most lit crit makes me break out in hives, personally).
You can see our previous effort to remedy this in the talk page archives here: Talk:The Tempest/Archive 2#Needed_expansion. If in your studies you run into good sources that add to those lists of themes or approaches, or that summarise its critical history from one of those perspectives, a quick note here with tips on good sources to use would be very helpful. And, of course, if you felt you were able to tackle the project yourself then that would be even better. :)
In any case, thank you for your evaluation comments, and good luck with your assignments. And do please feel free to {{ping}} me if you need any advice or assistance in connection with Wikipedia's Shakespeare-related articles. --Xover (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Xover.  My upcoming assignment involves editing an article, so I may be proposing some edits after I do some research. Thanks so much for reaching out :) Mk edwards (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Text currently reads:  "He conjures up a storm, the eponymous tempest, to lure his usurping brother Antonio and the complicit King Alonso of Naples to the island."
Since one lures with temptations, not life-threatening storms, this wording is confusing to those unfamiliar with the play.  It is better explained in the section titled Plot:  "Prospero, having divined that his brother Antonio is on a nearby ship, has raised a tempest that causes the passengers to believe they are shipwrecked and marooned."
I suggest the wording from the latter section be used in the opening paragraph:  "He conjures up a storm, the eponymous tempest, to cause his usurping brother Antonio and the complicit King Alonso of Naples to believe they are shipwrecked and marooned on the island," perhaps.
I am reading the article to refresh my memory of the play, which I have not read in decades, & will leave the decision as to whether or not to make the edit to those with better knowledge.
14:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)A Michener (talk)

@A Michener: Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the article accordingly. --Xover (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Leave it the way it is. It is after all Shakespearian writing.   Asha Sundrani (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@ObservingEgo: You have been repeatdly asked to discuss your concerns n this page rather than keep reverting. Your counter example of an "Amputees' section" is a strawman argument, since no reliable sources have discussed the lack of amputees in the play. Whereas this section, as its source demnostrates, explicititly fulfills the most fundamental criteria Wikipedia upholds, that of material being verifiable. In any case, re-igniting an edit war when the page has so recently had full-protection lifted, could be a phenomonally dangerous strategy, depending on how much longevity wone wished for one's career as a Wikipedian.  —SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

"...Although scholars have suggested that his [Ariel's] dialogue with Caliban in Act two, Scene one, contains hints of a future alliance between the two when Prospero leaves..."
There is no such dialog in Act two, Scene one in any copy of the Tempest available to me. In fact, I believe there is no dialog at all between Ariel and Caliban at any point in the play, and no "hint" anywhere of a "future alliance between the two when Prospero leaves". 
I'm also unable to find any "suggestion" of such a dialog in the cited article, (reference 33) Dolan, Frances E. (1992). "The Subordinate('s) Plot: Petty Treason and the Forms of Domestic Rebellion", which is in fact directly available for our reading pleasure at http://english.ucdavis.edu/sites/english.ucdavis.edu/files/users/fdolan/DolanPETTY_TREASON_AND_THE_FORMS_OF_DOMESTIC_REBELLION.pdf
So perhaps we can rewrite or remove this sentence.
WavesMartyKent (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@WavesMartyKent: You're right. Nice catch! Dolan (1992) (all 33 pages of it, sigh) does not mention anything that could even remotely support this sentence. The paragraph in question was added on 5 November 2007—in the midst of a spurt of editing by multiple editors—in this edit by Wrad. Since he usually knows what he is about, I'm loath to just remove it absent his feedback, so I've tagged the sentence with the {{failed verification}} template for now. He edit pretty intermittently these days, so I'm inclined to wait a goodly while to give him a chance to see it and respond.@Wrad: Any chance you can recall where you saw this claim (since it clearly wasn't in Dolan)? Alternately, can you provide any other pointers that might let us cite this claim, or, if appropriate, rephrase it to better match the sources? Might it, for example, be refering to one of the post-colonial adaptation rather than to The Tempest itself? --Xover (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

That particular note requires that any reference to the play, if it is to be verified (and if it has, say, only one source) to be verified twice:  Once with the direct support of the citation, and a second time with the indirect source of Folgers.
That note violates Wikipedia’s principles of verification, which says that sources belong in the citation — not down at the bottom of the article — and which also prohibits “indirect” sourcing.  See Wikipedia:Verifiability.  So I will delete it.  It’s not needed, and there’s plenty wrong with it:
That note says: “All references to The Tempest, unless otherwise specified, are taken from Folgers” — but that appears to be a false statement.  “All references” are not taken from Folgers:  First, this article begins with a massive quantity of content with zero citations.  (Best of luck verifying all that.)  When you finally come to the first citation, it certainly refers to the play, yet it has absolutely nothing to do with Folgers.  
That note wastes an editor’s time, for example:  A reference now in the subsection Other Sources, is sourced to Arden —in Arden the numbers exactly coincide with the content they are supporting.  What will checking with the Folger version show?  That the Arden and the Folger numberings are identical in that example.
Regarding the act-scene-line formatting used by Folgers, some might prefer the common method of just using the words “act, scene, line”.  The Folger formatting seems to appear only once (!) in the entire article.  So why are we so insistent in requiring this “double-verification” idea, which violate the guidelines, and wastes time?  It reeks of deliberate meaningless pedantry.  So I will delete the note.  Bitwixen (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bitwixen. Glad to see a new editor take an interest in the Shakespeare articles. There are far too few people working in the area, so I'm always happy to see new blood join the project, and I've been watching your edits with interest.That being said, once your edit was challenged (that is, when it was reverted), you need to seek consensus for the desired change on the article's talk page. To reapply the edit without gaining consensus first falls under edit warring and will pretty much only lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Also, in order to actually persuade anyone to your position you may want to dial down the combative tone. Nobody is likely to be persuaded by being insulted and browbeaten. And that extends to edit summaries: kudos for consistently explaining your changes in the edit summary, but a lot of them come across as pretty high-handed and dismissive of the previous efforts of other editors.As to the substance of your argument, you appear to be confused about several points. First, the text of the play is cited four times in the current article, and all four are to the edition published by the Folger. As I'm sure you are aware there are often significant textual differences between different editions of Shakespeare's plays. It is thus essential that references to the play are to a specified edition. I'm not sure what page number you refer to since the Folger Digital edition doesn't have page numbers, but in any case the page numbers for the Arden ediition are irrelevant since that's not the edition that is cited. Now we do cite the Arden edition, both the second and third series editions, and the Oxford as well; but we're citing the scholarship in the introduction or textual apparatus and not the text of the play itself.I'm also not sure what you mean by "indirect" citation as that word does not appear anywhere on WP:V. However, this article uses a consistent ciitation style (see WP:CITEVAR), that is also common on other Wikipedia articles: there are short citations in footnotes, that refer to full bibliographic references in the bibliography at the end. This is also quite common in scholarly monographs and articles. For the citations to the play itself, the web link in the short citation is just a convenience for the reader—since the Folger text, unlike the Arden and Oxford texts, is actually available and linkable online—with the actual full reference in the note you are objecting to (along with an explanation of the act/scene/line format, since all editions use different formats and a lay reader may not be familiar with any given format). Without the note the citation is not complete: that is, without the note the citations would fail verifiability.You also complain of the article beginning with "a massive quantity of content with zero citations". What you see there (the text before the table of contents) is the article's lead section. The lead section introduces the topic and summarises the rest of the article. It should normally contain no information not already present, and cited, in the body of the article, and thus will normally not have any citations itself. This, by the way, is "Wikipedia 101" stuff. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The editor above has twisted my words around and put words in my mouth.  I'd be more interested in a quality response.  I don't want to get involved in a trollish lot of garble, so I'll leave it.  I stand by what I said as accurate.  Bitwixen (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Bitwixen: You're free to do as you please, of course. But the decision-making process on Wikipedia is based on consensus, so if you are unwilling to engage in constructive discussion you will find it hard to achieve much of anything here. Also, for the second time, please refrain from personal attacks: comment on content, not on other contributors. --Xover (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

There appears to be no mention of the 2010 film adaptation staring Dame Helen Mirren and others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.137.5 (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 

Broad ideas are missing from the synopsis (try using the word "castaways" at least once!) Don't go into detail (like lines from the play or bullet points for each character.) The synopsis could be done in four paragraphs. Here is a fine example: https://www.folger.edu/tempest but there are many others available. 24.236.92.77 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4172486 Onetimeonjeopardy (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The "Criticism and interpretation" section has an orange "more sources needed" banner that should be addressed.
There is other uncited prose in the article, particularly in the "Performance history"
Some sections of the "performance history" section are bloated and need to be summarised more effectively. I suggest four paragraphs maximum per section, although this is just a suggestion.
Is anyone willing to address the above, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to take a look. My immediate comments on your comments are:
I'm not very worried by the banner: I'd guess that section can be resourced from Vaughan & Vaughan and other sources I have on my bookshelf, and anything remaining unsourced can be removed.
I can take a look at what you consider to be unsourced but more detail from you, even if just in the form of {cn} tags, would be useful.
I'm never much in favour of removing properly-sourced detail from articles just because of WP:TOOLONG worries. If I attack that I'd want to break-out sub-articles, summary style.
FWIW I probably wrote what is now the Performance History section of this article - although that would have been well over a decade ago. AndyJones (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones: I have added citation needed tags to the article, per your request above. I'm fine with spinning out sections of the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'm away for around another week (and unlikely to log into Wikipedia in the meantime). However while away I've been doing some reading and I see the point with the banner is mentioned by Vaughan and Vaughan, in Germaine Greer's biography of Shakespeare, and in the introduction to the NPS edition. So there are at least three sources which can be used to fix that issue. Also I've been reading a book by Jyotsna Singh which contains commentary on several of the adaptations/appropriations so that should help too. AndyJones (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Gently updating the above, I confirm having re-sourced the section which had a maintenance tag - removing the tag itself in the process. It does want a little more on genre but I have some sources that I think will help. Also the "postcolonial" stuff has problematic sourcing but Singh's book mentioned in my previous comment should enable me to resolve that too. AndyJones (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
A further update: You'll see I've been working on this article in the last few days and trying to clear maintenance tags (including those added as a result of this conversation). In that process I have added a few of my own. Another thing I've done is gone on ebay and ordered:
A copy of Orgel's Oxford Shakespeare Tempest
The latest Oxford Shakespeare Tempest
The Revised Edition of Vaughan and Vaughan
The first of these contains issues I might have challenged in the text of the article. The second and third are 21st-century updates (2024 and 2011 respectively) therefore might help to source (failing which, to filter out) the more recent stuff on this page. AndyJones (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, I've started a thread here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Tempest AndyJones (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Z1720: How goes it.  I don't have much experience of WP:GAR, but I tend to update the references, standardise them, help find other missing references and help develop the article. Andy Jones, the subject matter expert her seems to know what he's doing. The article has underwent significant expansion. I don't know what the process for GAR but it would suggest to wait about a month or a couple of months from now and see how it pans out. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 18:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Scope creep: If someone is working on the article, I don't bring the article to GAR. When updates are complete, feel free to ping me and I can take another look. Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Alqaryouti, Marwan Harb; Ismail, Hanita Hanim (2018) is coming up as a predatory journal and will likely need replaced.  scope_creepTalk 20:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
This one's easily fixed: it only sources the lede which doesn't need sourcing when the same point is made in the text - which it is both under criticism and under performance history. I'll remove it. AndyJones (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Ref 81 has no page number.
Ref 51 Barton 1868 is missing scope_creepTalk 20:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Y
Briliant, thanks. I'll look into all of those, and feel free to post more here. AndyJones (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Ref 162 as well
There is a load of page numbers in bib section that need removed, unless its a journal. Bib should only contain the bib ref. For example Howard, Tony. "Shakespeare on Film and Video". In Wells & Orlin (2003), pp. 607–619. I will need to have another look at it. I'm half-asleep at the moment. scope_creepTalk 20:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay. @Scope creep: I have a copy of Wells and Orlin on my bookshelf so I can no-doubt fix this. However I don't quite understand what you're suggesting should be changed?? AndyJones (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Since posting the above I've given some thought to what your issue might be, and I wonder if it's this: Wells and Orlin isn't so much a-book-written-by-Wells-and-Orlin as a collection of papers by mainly other academics and edited by Wells and Orlin. Accordingly when I referenced the paper by Tony Howard - and it probably was me - I referenced the specific paper, not the book as a whole, but recorded that it was in Wells and Orlin and gave the pages where that paper was to be found (which I can confirm, upon checking today, is indeed pp. 607-619). I would also, separately, for each fact cited from there, have given the number of the specific page where it is to be found. So on that basis, what you've copied above seems to me to be correct - or at least exactly what I intended to post. This was before there were any reference templates on this page other than <ref> tags. I don't know what the convention is, now, for recording that situation. It will apply on this page a lot: the structure of all the "Cambridge Companion to..." volumes is the same and I would have cited them in the same way. Hope that helps? Or at least helps to explain how we got here? AndyJones (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Morning @AndyJones: I think I was half-asleep when I wrote that. Yes, I think it needs be consistent that. If its a journal you give the full page numbers in the bib section. On Wells if it had the chapter in, it would you'd provide the page numbers in the bib, otherwise they go above in the sfn tag. I think that is convention. Its a bit unusual. I suppose it will come up on peer review.  scope_creepTalk 08:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @AndyJones: I discovered what it was. The page numbers are correct per your comment above. Slow waking up and half-asleep the last time. It was these harvc tags that confused me. I hadn't seen them before with the page numbers seemingly in the wrong place. Generally I wouldn't have expanded them to full book cites with the chapter page numbers. But if you put them in I'll just leave them as is.  scope_creepTalk 09:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to find a reference on this. It's was on at the Met  2012. I think you'll need access to newspapers.com at the wp:libary. The quote turns up but not the original Silverman report.  scope_creepTalk 08:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: For [24][better source needed], I found this:

Stritmatter, R.; Kositsky, L. (16 July 2007). "Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited". The Review of English Studies. 58 (236): 447–472. doi:10.1093/res/hgl152.
It seems to suggest that information is slightly out of date and para needs updated to reflect it. Are you able to access that doi? If you not it can be requested at resource request. It says "Cited directly to Malone writing in 1808. Needs a supporting reference in recent scholarship.". So that could be potentially a good a second ref?  scope_creepTalk 09:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Scope creep:. I'm reluctant to reopen that can of worms, but I won't be using Stritmatter and Kositsky as a source for this page. AndyJones (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones: Worth a try I guess. It hard going finding sources.  scope_creepTalk 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
That will still need a second modern source and the one below it thats missing a cite.  scope_creepTalk 21:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
True, @Scope creep:. And thanks so much for your help so far in tidying the sources we do have. AndyJones (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Garber, Marjorie (2005) @AndyJones: doesn't have a page number.  scope_creepTalk 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I see though that it is used to source only one thing, which has two other footnotes. I'll check this evening if that thing is verified by Vaughan and Vaughan. If all okay then I suggest we simply delete it.AndyJones (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Have looked into this but (annoyingly!) V&V fails verification. It does have a section on the Masque but says nothing like what this section says. I doubt I can source Garber, so my feeling at the moment is that the wisest way to resolve this is to rewrite the section from V&V and Orgel. Another task for my list! AndyJones (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones:  Do you want me to look for more references? I'll finish off the oclc and locations on references this week. Ping me when your done with that section.  scope_creepTalk 22:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Thanks. No, not necessarily. I feel that we have plenty of sources to make a fully-sourced page and therefore don't believe in going out to find more. The process I am following right now is this:
I've got a pile of books which I have read, and have tabbed with post-it notes the points I think should be on the page. So I'm slowly working through those checking whether that information is already here and adding or correcting it if not.
Next, I plan to check each {cn} or {better source needed} or {failed verification} against the indexes of that same pile of books to see what that can verify or fix.
Next, I'll take the view that anything remaining unsourced after that exercise patently isn't considered important enough to the subject of The Tempest by specialist writers about The Tempest, and therefore can simply be deleted.
All of this will take a while, I should think. But I have finished the part which happens off-wiki, namely reading the books and putting the tabs on them. The one area where I would like to be able to do better is in the field of Music, about which I'd like to find a decent book-length source, but haven't found one. AndyJones (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones:  It looks like you have a process. I can wait until its completed and work around the edges. I saw the incidental music list and tried to find sources for the cn tags. It was difficult. Have you thought about asking around, maybe at the reference desk or other other editors. There is bound be a specialist somewhere who has studied the music of the tempest in all its incarnations and published a tome about it. On a specialist publisher maybe. I'll ask around and do a search. But that will be difficult.   scope_creepTalk 17:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: I notice that a lot of the refs have links to the internet archive that are no longer there due that legal actions that has removed the book unfortunately. A lot have ben marked dead-url tag but I'll check them all.  scope_creepTalk 22:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep: thank you. Is this only happening in places where the paper source is adequate? If so I'm less worried than I would be if we were attempting to {cite web} to a dead link, in which case I would ideally want to re-source from somewhere else or if that failed to delete the content. Thanks for checking them anyway and let me know if you think there's more action that needs to be taken. AndyJones (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, exactly.  I still think they are good solid refs. It just needs the dead url removed. I've had to do it a couple of other articles. I'll move on with that and look for more decent refs for the stuff thats missing.  scope_creepTalk 16:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

To prevent this disappearing to Ref Desk archives, I'm copying this conversation here. AndyJones (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

In light of this conversation at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which I'm copying here for future reference...

...my proposal is - for the moment - to keep that paragraph as further re-sourced by me as suggested. As mentioned above my intention is eventually to break-out several sections summary-style into their own articles, one of which will become The Tempest on Screen. I envisage the mention of Ex Machina making its way into the new article but not being significant enough to keep here. AndyJones (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested in my process, I've finished adding material and sources to the page. I now think that anything that isn't on here doesn't belong (but of course that's just my opinion and I'm happy for other Wikipedians to improve the page in the normal way). My intention now is:

Firstly, to start removing everything that still says it is unsourced. While doing so I will check in each case which has a blue link whether it can be sourced from the target page. But if not, I'll just delete it.
Then, to create three sub-pages:
Performance History of The Tempest
The Tempest in Music, Literature and Art and
The Tempest on Screen
Then to copy the relevant sections of this page across to those pages.
And, then, to abridge those sections of this page in accordance with @Z1720:'s suggestions on 5th January (above).
At that point, I'll be done here but I may then request a Good Article Nomination the three new articles to see if they qualify and if not how they can be improved.
That's all I've got for the moment. I expect this is my last edit until tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Update on this. I'm now happy with sourcing throughout the article EXCEPT the "Music" section which contains a large list of works - most of them probably genuine - but added here unsourced and by my count with 28 citations needed. I am happy to just kill-off all of that guff here at this article but not sure I have the patience to fix it at the sub-article. My plan now is to create the sub-article and immediately to give it a maintenance tag in the hope that someone other than me will eventually consider that worthwhile. AndyJones (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones: Can you create a lede on The Tempest in Music, Literature and Art and i'll fix up the references. It looks a bit odd without one.  scope_creepTalk 17:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Scope creep:. I've given it a short one-sentence lede. I expect we can do better given some time. AndyJones (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I think what I was trying to achieve here is complete.
I may still have more work to do, tidying things up etc., especially at the three sub-pages I've created. I also think there's a bit more work to do on the reference formats, especially what are now numbers 4, 10, 116, 178, 195, 212 and 213. @Scope creep: it would be kind if you could help me with that or give me some guidance how to fix them myself.
@Z1720: can you consider if we have addressed the issues you originally raised at this page? Let me know if you think further trimming would be desirable. I'll now let it be your decision whether you want to take this page to WP:GAR. 
Thanks all for your support during this process. AndyJones (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: I'll take a look.  scope_creepTalk 17:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@AndyJones: Ref 10 needs a page number.  scope_creepTalk 22:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Ref 212 doesn't have a page number either.  scope_creepTalk 22:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Done this. Ignore.  scope_creepTalk 22:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Ref 10 does need a page number.  scope_creepTalk 22:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Ref 8 is broken with a failed verification.  scope_creepTalk 11:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Ref 10 doesn't have a page number.  scope_creepTalk 11:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
@AndyJones: These both need looking at.  scope_creepTalk 11:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Good point: The easiest solution will be to replace the sourced sentence with whatever Vaughan and Vaughan have at those pages, thereby making footnote 10 (and, in passing, 9 too) unnecessary. I'm working away from home at the moment but I'll fix that in the next few days. AndyJones (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Great work @Scope creep:! Apart from your point above, which I'll fix, the only footnotes I think want attention are 116 and 195. AndyJones (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it today.  scope_creepTalk 09:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Following-up the section "Done" above, I have come back here and:

I have killed-off the one remaining source which was a direct {citeweb} without an {sfn}, simply by re-sourcing the same point to a book.
I have dealt with the footnotes discussed with @Scope creep: above by removing the subsection The masque from the plot summary and replacing it with two new subsections, sourced from the Oxford and Arden editions, The masque and Chastity, in the themes and tropes section.
Therefore I have now finished on this page and I'm happy for it to go for re-assessment, or not, as other people think best.
One minor exception is that I recently received a copy of David Lindley's New Cambridge Shakespeare "The Tempest", which I've started reading. If I feel that anything in it should be on this page, I can add it later on, but not as part of this exercise. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)