Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 6

message: The article is now at 71 kilobytes and bound to swell abit during the next process.  Any way we can all look for opportunies to trim a bit? For example, I think the Reputation section has swelled maybe a bit too much - especially considering there is a sub-article to link to. Smatprt 23:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on the FAC it has been brought up that the article is quite short.  Might want to wait on this.  Let's just focus on the FAC, for now. Wrad 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the consensus on the FAC so far is that the article is too short, not too long, I wouldn't trim anything. Best,--Alabamaboy 02:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming

message: Modern criticism has described some of his plays as "problem plays." This term is applied to overlapping groups of plays by scholars beginning with F. S. Boas, W. W. Lawrence, and E. M. W. Tillyard. The common element in the definition is that the plays so labelled present "a perplexing or distressing problem" in a way that raises rather than answers ethical questions.
What does this mean?! Can someone rewrite this in simple, or comprehensible, English? RedRabbit1983 06:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given it a try.--Old Moonraker 07:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In very simple terms the PROBLEM with a problem play is that you have a problem classifying it as a tragedy or a comedy. AndyJones 07:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Old Moonraker's version very good IMO. AndyJones 07:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've rewritten that bit and cut the first sentence (1896 isn't all that modern, and the final sentence of the para states the position today). --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's better—I was trying to say that the title was coined, not the grouping!--Old Moonraker 11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *I see this has been resolved. RedRabbit1983 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Reworded, following more closely the phrasing of the source work. --Old Moonraker 06:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *This has also been resolved. RedRabbit1983 13:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence

message: This ref seems odd.  I guess it is citing the fact that Thomas North was the translator, but shouldn't the ref lead to an attribution of the broader facts involved?  Does citation 67 cover this issue? Wrad 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ref 66 

message: There are technical issues going on in the middle of this section.  I'm not sure what it was before.  Can anyone fix this? Wrad 21:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it and added content that was in the intro of Shakespeare's sonnets. It looks to me as if something had been deleted sometime in the past, thus tampering with the reference markup. --Kyoko 22:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sonnets problem 

message: Scholars have pointed out the influences of Shakespeare beyond the page and the theater.  I just don't know where to find the sources for them.  Here are some examples:
*Psychology: Shakespeare strongly influenced Sigmund Freud's theories, and thus much of the psychiatric world to this day.
*Human Consciousness in general: Scholars have also proposed that we are who we are and that we think the way we think because of Shakespeare's writing.  In other words, Shakespeare created the human mindset of today. 
Does anyone know where to get sources for this?  I've been trying for awhile, but haven't had much luck so far. Wrad 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also read that before, but I don't know how much stock to put in it. I've also read that Shakespeare greatly influenced 19th century medical doctors. Perhaps all of this should be put into Shakespeare's influence but not the main article (once we get references for the items, that is).--Alabamaboy 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other influences 

message: Can I ask if the "performance history" section is intended to stop where it does or whether it's the intention to expand it? If the latter I can probably have a go this evening, but I'd like to be clear what the author's intention was. Incidentally, am I the only one who's finding it hard to keep up with the pace of change of the article and the discussions on it? AndyJones 12:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't intend to expand this section any more. Since this is an article about Shakespeare, I feel only the original performances during his lifetime are relevant. If you follow the link in that last sentence, you will see that there's far too much into on subsequent performances to add in here. Of course, that's just my opinion.--Alabamaboy 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I won't touch it, then. I wonder if maybe the heading needs to change a little, though? As it is, it encourages you to think you'll be reading about Garrick, Kemble, Irving and so forth. AndyJones 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Alabamaboy 18:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance History 

message: This is under-developed: The twentieth century saw the development of the professional field of study known as English studies, covering English literature and language fields.[159] Critical methods applied to Shakespeare's works included structuralism, poststructuralism and semiotics, and his works were analysed from feminist and Marxist perspectives.
The first sentence is irrelevant: readers want to know about the study of Shakespeare, not about a general field of study. The next sentence is poorly linked, and is just a laundry list of critical methods. Inject some life into it. 
Everything in the Reputation section before the last two paragraphs is well written, though. RedRabbit1983 15:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph

message: Because I am too familiar with the article, I won't attempt to copyedit it. Here are my concerns for those who are interested:
They have been translated into every major living language[44] and are continually performed all over the world.—This sentence looks misplaced besides the two adjacent sentences.
For the second sentence of Sources, see Talk:William Shakespeare#Sentence
Shakespeare may also have borrowed stylistic elements from contemporary playwrights like Christopher Marlowe.—Who else? Or should I say, whom else?
Common to all four...—The paragraph jumps from Hamlet to all four plays and then back to Hamlet.
leaving the other three in the "problem" category.—Unless there is something I am missing, this doesn't need to be stated.
Many of the plays have been alternatively classified as tragicomedies—Only four are discussed: "Many" is imprecise. Anyway, this raises the question: all four? Three of them? How many exactly? Or this referring to plays other than the Problem Plays as well?
No authoritative print version appeared in his lifetime, and there is no evidence that Shakespeare supervised the publication of any of his plays.—The sentence has improved, but it's still awkward. The jumping of tenses is probably causing my unease.
There are signficant textual problems and textual variants, small and large, in every play of which multiple texts have survived.—The subject should be "Every play..."
Unlike some other dramatists of the time—How about, "Unlike some of his fellow dramatists"?
As a result, textual variations resulted from printers' errors...—Does this follow? Printers don't seem to be forced to make errors because Shakespeare took no interest in publication. Perhaps another way of linking the sentence should be found.
The text in many of the so-called bad quartos is so badly mangled that they are assumed to be among the "stol'n and surreptitious copies" that the editors of the First Folio complain about.—How are they mangled? Nothing else is said about "stol'n and surreptitious copies" yet the sentence assumes the reader is familiar with this.
The quarto and folio versions of King Lear, for instance, differ to a significant degree.—"for instance" shouldn't be in the middle of the sentence.
Traditionally, editors have arrived at a conflated Lear, including all scenes from both versions. How about replacing "including..." with "which includes"?
However, Madeleine Doran saw the two as meaningfully distinct, and Gary Taylor and Roger Warren's The Division of the Kingdom made the case that textual differences such as those in the texts of Lear arose from different provenances for the two texts.—This doesn't read well. Nor does the next sentence.
I am uncomfortable with the next paragraph.
During Shakespeare's lifetime, many of his plays were performed in the Globe and Blackfriars Theatres[60] by the playing company the Lord Chamberlain's Men —Can we remove "the playing company"?
"in" should be "at".
The other main location where Shakespeare's original plays were performed—This is unbalanced. The previous sentence has "were staged at"; then this sentence follows with "The other main location ...was".
The King's Men played in Blackfriars during the winter, and at the Globe during the summer.—Same problem with "in". I don't think this sentence needs a comma.
Shakespeare's fellow playing company members acted in his plays.—Awkward. Anyway, this is repeating information.
Among these actors were Richard Burbage (who played the title role in the first performances of many of Shakespeare's plays, including Hamlet, Othello, Richard III and King Lear),[62] Richard Cowley (who played Verges in Much Ado About Nothing), William Kempe, (who played Peter in Romeo and Juliet and, possibly, Bottom in A Midsummer Night's Dream) and Henry Condell and John Heminges, known today for collecting and editing the plays of Shakespeare's First Folio (1623).—There is problem with syntax.I suggest changing the commas to semi-colons and the parentheses to commas.
In the centuries since Shakespeare's death, his plays have been performed numerous times in different venues, formats, and versions. This seems redundant. It might bore the reader.
These are narrative poems, with both "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece" based on classical works by the Roman poet Ovid, while "A Lover's Complaint" tells the original story of a scorned love (although a few scholars question if Shakespeare was the poem's actual author).—The with- phrase constitutes most of this sentence and has most of the information—an awkward syntax. The "while" is wrong: "while" should only be used for "at the same as" or "whereas".
These poems were all written in the rhyme royal (with the rhyme scheme ababbcc)[69][70] and appear to have been written either in an attempt to win the patronage of a rich benefactor (a common practice of the time) or as the result of such patronage.—Sentence jumps tense mid-way.
In addition, the anthology The Passionate Pilgrim was attributed to him...—"In addition" doesn't work here as a transition; it appears cheap.
Shakespeare served his dramatic apprenticeship at the height of the Elizabethan era—"dramatic apprenticeship" is too vague.
During this period, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time."—Paraphrase this instead of quoting.
Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate—Can we find something better than "Stories of various genres"? The word "enacted" seems eccentric here.
His style changed not only in accordance with his own tastes and developing mastery, but also in accord with the tastes of the audiences for whom he wrote—"accordance", not "accord". Also, "His style changed... in accordance with his... developing mastery" doesn't read well.
While many passages in Shakespeare's plays are written in prose, he usually wrote a large proportion—How about, "Although Shakespeare wrote many passages in prose..."? The voice will be consistent and the sentence balanced.
He and other dramatists at the time used this form of blank verse... Does "this form of blank verse" refer to iambic pentameter with the end of lines punctuated or just simply "blank verse"?
A typical example is provided in Macbeth:—Can we remove "provided"? Or at least change it to "occurs"?
His plays are further notable for their use of soliloquies in which a character makes a solitary speech so the audience is given insight into the character's motivations and inner conflict.—Shouldn't there be a comma after soliloquies? Can we change "so the audience..." to "giving the audience..."?
The character either speaks to the audience directly (such as choruses, or characters that become epilogues) or, more commonly, speaks to him- or herself in the fictional realm—"such as" should be "such as in". Is "him- or herself" really necessary? Normally it should be avoided at all cost.
Shakespeare's writing—in particular his plays— feature extensive wordplay in which double entendres and clever rhetorical flourishes are repeatedly used.—Change "in which... are used" to "of". The dashes probably should be commas.
Humor is a key element in all of Shakespeare's plays.—How?
The next sentence is too long.
The last three sentences of the paragraph don't flow. That's all I have time for. RedRabbit1983 05:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More copyediting

message: "Is this an improvement?" asks User:AndyJones. Yes!  --Old Moonraker 17:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you. RedRabbit1983 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology and publication 

message: Please target the following sections:
*last sentence of intro;
*2nd paragraph of Performance;
*1st and last paragraph of Style;
*and Influence on theatre, literature, and language.
These are most in need of copyediting. RedRabbit1983 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections most in need of copyedit

message: I mentioned my problem with the "Style" section at the peer review and since another editor has now queried the opening paragraph of it, I have taken what seems to me the most useful action and cut that opening paragraph, which has almost nothing directly to do with style. Apart from which, it is fraught with other problems, as I pointed out at peer review. I place it here for appraisal, in case anyone disagrees with my edit. qp10qp 22:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shakespeare started his career in drama at the height of the Elizabethan era, in the years following the defeat of the Spanish Armada; he retired at the height of the Jacobean period, not long before the start of the Thirty Years' War. During this time, "drama became the ideal means to capture and convey the diverse interests of the time." Stories of various genres were enacted for audiences consisting of both the wealthy and educated and the poor and illiterate.{{Citation
 | year = 2005
 | title = Elizabethan Period (1558–1603), from ProQuest Period Pages
 | publisher =ProQuest
 | url= http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_id=xri:
No problem with that: a good edit. AndyJones 22:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The first sentence shouldn't stand alone in the paragraph. Another sentence is needed to elaborate its content. RedRabbit1983 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style section

message: Exactly which plays are listed in the First Folio? According to the article, all 6 categories of Shakespeare's works are in the First Folio, but can we say for sure that that is true?--Romeo in love 22:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 36 plays in the First Folio are listed in that article. - Nunh-huh 22:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that, but the Poems, Lost Plays, and Apocrypha aren't listed, are they?--Romeo in love 22:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not listed because they are not in the First Folio. The First Folio was a collection of plays, and so the Poems do not appear. The so-called "Lost Plays" would not be lost if they were known to be in the First Folio (there's some question as to whether Love's Labour's Won is an alternate title or a lost play), and the "Apochrypha" wouldn't be apochryphal if they did. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are listed, and I see what Romeo is saying.  The Bibliography section says "The following are in the first folio," but then lists everything, not just the first folio. Wrad 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are not listed in the First Folio article. Which is as it should be. The Bibliography section here doesn't quite say what you say it says, but what it says is not quite right and needs fixing.  I would suggest it be changed to something like "Shakespeare's works include the plays which appear in the First Folio, (listed here according to their classification there), two plays which do not appear in the First Folio (Pericles, Prince of Tyre and The Two Noble Kinsmen), and the Poems. Other works attributed to him are classified here as Lost Plays or Apocrypha."- Nunh-huh 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like an excellent plan. I'm glad there isn't any similar confusion in the folio article. Wrad 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea, that's what I meant. Sorry for any confusion. Nunh-huh's idea is fine.--Romeo in love 01:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Folio 

message: When we cite a work editing by someone, does the editor's name go LAST, FIRST MI. or FIRST MI. LAST? I can see that the authors' names go LAST, FIRST MI. but does the same apply to editors?--Romeo in love 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it depends.  If the Author is listed, then first last.  If the Author isn't, and the editor goes first, then last, first. Citations are still being worked on too, so don't feel too worried about it. Wrad 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An FAC shouldn't be affected by the niceties on this, since the main thing is to give full information about the source. Style guides vary, but on the whole the footnotes should go first name, second name, and the references list or bibliography should go second name, first name. The reason for the difference is that the bibliography is an alphabetical list, where one looks authors up by surname, whereas you can't look books up alphabetically in the footnotes so there's no need to put the second name first. On the other hand, consistency is important, so the second name, first name method used in this article's footnotes should be observed, obviously. Editors are treated in the same way as authors; though when a book has an editor and an author, the author takes precedence and the editor goes after the book title. Any editor or co-author who isn't named first in the book details in the bibliography goes first name, second name, as Wrad points out. qp10qp 02:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only other point to add is that because {citebook} goes LAST, FIRST I've tried to follow that in any citation which doesn't use that template, for consistency. AndyJones 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors' names at which format? 

message: I have pulled out some of the fluff in the prose. However, there are still some sentences that need editing.
he expanded the dramatic possibilities of characterisation, plot, language, and genre
Something more precise than dramatic possibilities?
Hamlet's failings cause his downfall, even though he is merely exhibiting some of the most basic of human reactions and emotions.
Awkward. Why do we need an "even though" clause? This should be rewritten.
Shakespeare's characters were complex and all too human.
Tacky. RedRabbit1983 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done more work on the section. I hope it is to people's satisfaction. RedRabbit1983 07:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence on theatre, literature, and language

message: We are now saying the following unsourced:
::Many of Shakespeare's plays are reputed to be among the greatest—not only in the English language but in all of Western literature. They have been translated into every major living language[41] and are continually performed all over the world.
I feel sure we've dealt with this in the past, so I'm not sure where the sources have got to. It needs fixing, though: it's the basis of Alabamaboy's introductory paragraph at the FA that we've fixed the article's WP:PEACOCK problems. AndyJones 08:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peacock / Sourcing problem 

message: I appreciate we are all editing very fast. However, can I make a special plea that we please all take care if deleting footnotes, to ensure that they are not referred to elsewhere?
I know what the footnote which is now [8] means:
:Michell, 62-63 
...but it is difficult to see how the average reader will work it out. AndyJones 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it.  That change was made about a week ago... Wrad 15:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A plea on deleting footnotes 

message: Besides those of the Authorship section, have we fixed citations? How are we going to resolve the Authorship issue? If this article doesn't pass because of a three sentence paragraph, I will be very, very annoyed. Ideas, please. RedRabbit1983 16:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could have two sections of "Style": One describing the forms he used that were common, and another describing those which were more unique to him.  Both seem vital to any summary of his style. Wrad 17:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph of "Influences" could conceivably be moved to "style". Wrad 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support that move. Seems to be its more logical home. AndyJones 17:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I've edited all of those except the "integral" one. Can you list more infelicities? Random or otherwise. RedRabbit1983 17:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good one. I've been worrying for days what I was going to do with that neoclassical paragraph. I was beginning to hope nobody would notice it was wrong!! AndyJones 17:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I look for these sentences like easter eggs, but qp10qp has found more than I have. My familiarity with the article hides them from me. RedRabbit1983 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining issues

message: This section may need more, as QP said.  Some scholars claim Shakespeare influenced the way we think as humans today.  Shakespeare
also strongly influenced psychology, through Sigmund Freud and others.  He also may have changed views of history through several of his plays, as well.  We may need to broaden the scope of the section to include these issues. Wrad 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a colourful closing paragraph to the section. Also there's an article on Shakespeare's Influence by John Gross in a book that landed on my doorstep from Amazon this week. I'll take a look. AndyJones 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice, I'm looking into psychology now.  With the right wording and sources, I should be able to work it into your paragraph. Wrad 18:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some psychology and did a little copy edit.  I'm going to look into history now. Wrad 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No luck on history.  I don't know if there is much to say there that would be notable enough. Wrad 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm supposed to be on a wikibreak, but a cancelled train means I'm actually here on wikipedia: at least for an hour or so, so I'll try to help. I have read John Gross. It's a well written article, but I felt that for our purposes it was rather too much of a laundry list - he gives many examples of works influenced by WS, whereas I think QP had in mind a better qualitative analysis: what type of influence Shakespeare has had, and why. Anyway, I'll skim Gross again, and add something to the page. After that I'm away until Wednesday, so others will have to mess around with it. AndyJones 10:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influences

message: There are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs.[4]
Let's do something about this sentence - it's terrible! RedRabbit1983 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about, "While most information known about Shakespeare is upheld by tradition and factual evidence and supported by many academics studying this dramaturge, there are many speculations about the man, including whether the works attributed to him were actually written by another playwright, as well as questions pertaining to his sexuality and religious beliefs."--Romeo in love 18:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. There are too many words. RedRabbit1983 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Either way, it's bad. We need someone fresh to rewrite it. We've meddled with it enough, to no avail. RedRabbit1983 10:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with RedRabbit about this. We've already argued the "because we have so few facts" point, and the sentence is better without that. Obviously the lack of facts is the reason there's wriggle room for speculation. But it's not the cause of the speculation. There are almost no known facts about my great-great-great-great-grandfather User:OwainGlendowerJones either, but nobody speculates about him. (Although feel free to do so now, if you like.) The problem with the sentence is just that it's a bad sentence that needs copy-editing. AndyJones 11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This is still not good: Due, in part, to the period known as Shakespeare's "lost years" biographers know very little about his private life. Even if biographers remain totally ignorant of the lost years, they could still know every detail of S's life before and after the lost years. The lost years hardly account for ignorance of other years. RedRabbit1983 04:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence

message: This section has been pointed out by Qp as not having a good grasp of the subject yet.  The section talks mostly about forms he used that were popular in his day, but could possibly go more in depth on his differences in style from his contemporaries.  Maybe what the section needs is some sort of division: the first part discussing forms popular in the day, and the second showing forms unique to him, comparing him to his contemporaries. Wrad 19:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked my school's databases. I couldn't find anything.--Romeo in love 19:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: "Others, such as Leo Tolstoy, dismissed the plays of Shakespeare. [131]" Do we really need this sentence? It doesn't actually say anything meaningful. The reputation section as a whole is a bit list-like. Perhaps it would be better to have sense of S's reputation as an "untutored" writers in the 17th c; the rewriting of his plays etc, and the nature of the emerging Romantic and Victorian conception of him. Paul B 20:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the Reputation section myself, pretty much from scratch, so I'm probably far too close to the subject to comment. If you recognise weaknesses, go ahead and fix them. The Tolstoy sentence wasn't mine, and seemed to be sourced to a book, rather than a particular page within a book as I always do, so I've no objection to removing it: although the better course, as always, would be to check out the situation and write a better sentence on Tolstoy. AndyJones 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He talks about S in What is Art? The gist is that S is a bad writer because - unlike the much greater writer Tolstoy - he doesn't have a message and he uses dramatic conventions and narrative tricks rather than seeks to see the truth. In other words he wasn't a 19th century Social Realist. It's a kind of "Ruskinian" attack on Shakespeare, with elements in common with Shaw's view in Shakes versus Shav. I could discuss it in more detail, but we don't want to go off too much on tangents. Paul B 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove it. This stuck out to me as odd earlier, too. Wrad 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputation

message: ... "around sixteen" of the 36 plays included therein.  So, would that be fourteen?  Fifteen?  Seventeen? Eighteen?  Surely there must be some easily identifiable authoritative source which can produce an exact figure for the number of plays for which the First Folio is the only extant source? --GuillaumeTell 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Folio the only extant source for ..... 

message: I just replaced several refs to the Shakespeare-info.com and Shakespeare.org page with more scholarly sources.  Are there any more in question which need replacing? Wrad 23:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one: "The Catholic Encyclopedia questions not only his Catholicism but his Christianity, enquiring whether "Shakespeare was not infected with the atheism, which... was rampant in the more cultured society of the Elizabethan age."[150]" The ref is to a Catholic encyclopedia. It has already been pointed out as a problematic sentence and source, and I agree.  It just doesn't fit with the other scholarly sources we have, and may give too much credence to a not so accepted point of view.  I'm going to cut it and adjust religion section a bit. Wrad 23:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On changing this, I noticed this sentence: "Other scholars agree with the suggestion that Shakespeare was Catholic; but this is by no means universally accepted." It has been without a reference for a while. Wrad 23:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an Oxford Bio ref to it.  This article covers scholarly opinion on his Catholicism pretty thoroughly, and makes it clear that the assumptions are not widely accepted.  It's a good article. Wrad 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable refs 

message: Can we add another sentence to London and theatrical career - perhaps one about the publisher apologising for Greene's attack on Shakespeare? RedRabbit1983 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London and theatrical career

message: Are we happy with the intro? RedRabbit1983 04:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: How do things stand with this article? How far are we from making this featured? RedRabbit1983 07:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's becoming more attainable all the time. qp10qp 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress

message: I found some mistakes and issues around the Roman notes to these plays (see my edit summaries). I have patched things up with the best references I can find for the moment; but it needs someone with access to the latest state of play on the attribution/collaboration status of these plays to make a definitive edit. The article said unequivocally that Thomas Middleton collaborated with Shakespeare on Titus Andronicus; but I knew from studying The Changeling for 'A' Level that Middleton is more of a Jacobean playwright. Vickers (not Boyd, as the ref said) favours Peele as a collaborator on Titus, and so I have added a note to indicate that; it seems, though, that that attribution is far from universally accepted: it's not accepted by Jonathan Bate, a serious Shakespeare scholar, for example. In my heart of hearts, I'd favour our attributing this play purely to Shakespeare: that would be a conservative decision unlikely to bother many people, whereas the other way round, as it stands at present with the little sword sign, it feels slightly edgy (I've seen Titus, and though it's a terrible play, it felt unified; there weren't any of the blatant style jumps I noticed when watching Two Noble Kinsmen, or even the Hecate stuff in Macbeth). 
The article note stated that George Peele had collaborated with Shakespeare on Timon of Athens; but, checking several sources, it seems that Middleton is the favourite candidate; there is far more strength, though once again dissenting scholarly voices exist, behind Timon being a collaboration than behind Titus, and so I think the article's present stance (I've stuffed three refs in and added a slight doubt to the note) is sustainable and unlikely to be much challenged.qp10qp 08:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titus and Timon

message: I've removed the following list from the article for the time being. Hopefully my reasons for doing so can be discussed here before a final decision is made about it.
"Further reading" sections, which aren't by any means an essential part of a Wikipedia article, are supposed to contain only books which weren't directly referenced in the article; but this list contains a mixture of books whose details already appear in full in the references in addition to books which aren't referenced in the article. My view is that, given the mother-and-father of a references section we have, there is no great benefit or logic in handing the reader a few more books to read. So I think the article is better without such a list; more than enough further reading is already provided in the references.
If editors feel they do require this list in some form, I'd suggest that, for consistency, we either remove from it the books that are already fully referenced, or we remove the books that aren't referenced and call the section a "Select biography". In the latter case, we'd have to think carefully about which books of the many in the references section are core books on Shakespeare (Schoenbaum, etc.? I'm no judge). Meanwhile, it might be a good idea to create a Shakespeare bibliography page (or better still, a Shakespeare scholarly bibliography page—to discourage cruft), to house a full alphabetical list of the books referenced on this and other Shakespeare pages, plus other worthy books. It might be helpful to annotate and categorise the list somewhat, using scholarly references, so making it a useful page for people who may not know where to start in reading books on Shakespeare. Any comments? qp10qp 00:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading