Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 7

message: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
#It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
#*(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
#*(b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
#*(c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
#*(d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias; see neutral point of view.
#*(e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; reversions of vandalism and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.
#It complies with the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects. Thus, it includes:
#*(a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
#*(b) a system of hierarchical headings; 
#*(c) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and
#*(d) consistently formatted inline citations, using either footnotesSmith 2007, p. 1. or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
#It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
#It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
At the moment, I believe that the following criteria are not yet met:
*1.a: The prose is not yet brilliant, by any means, but hopefully my copy edit is gradually addressing that; be patient with me because re-researching each sentence is taking me ages (gaps in my editing record won't necessarily mean that I am not working on the article).
*1.b: I've identified a few holes in the comprehensiveness, particularly in the "Style" section, and I am addressing this as I copy edit. For example, this evening I have been researching modernism and Shakespeare because in the "Reputation" section we seem to jump from Shaw to postmodernism, leaving out modernism. The article is close to comprehensiveness, though, and this criterion shouldn't be too hard to meet.
*1.c: I'm finding occasional factual inaccuracies and misreferencing (see message higher up about Middleton and Peele); but I should be able to scour out any remaining such errors as I go through.
*2.d: Consistently formatted inline citations: this will take time but is straightforward to achieve.
Looking at the above, you will see why I am so optimistic. The main criticism at FAC was about reliability of sources; but I'm not seeing any unreliable sources in this article any more. qp10qp 04:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's usually for lack of consensus among the reviewers, not the editors.qp10qp 16:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul commented: "Judging from numerous issues brought up on that page, I didn't consider the nomination to have a consensus to promote." - It sounds like he is talking about the editors Smatprt 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure he is talking about the FAC page.qp10qp 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article criteria

message: Someone just re-applied for FAC, So you all might want to comment on the new FAC page. Wrad 17:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a malformed application, and so it hasn't gone through, as far as I can see. I would oppose strongly at the moment because the article doesn't yet meet the criteria, as detailed above. But I think we can get there in under a month.qp10qp 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meldshal, don't apologise; it's great to have you supporting the article. Would you be prepared to be one of the nominators when we do put it up again in a few weeks' time? qp10qp 12:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New FAC 

message: "Although all alternative candidates are rejected in academic circles, popular interest in the subject, particularly the Oxfordian theory, has continued into the 21st century."
User:Smatprt has edited the authorship section, which I thought was at last a consensus version, in a way that completely skews it. I would not support this wording for FAC, and it will be objected to there for certain. Is Smatprt not satisfied with having won the argument to include this section in the article at all? Since the matter was discussed, Smatprt has also changed the sentence in the lead to a version that says "Biographers know very little about Shakespeare's private life"... despite the arguments and edits against this, which I thought were settled in the past. On this edit the matter is simple: either we include the statement  and counter it in the article with the assertions from other biographers that a lot is known about Shakespeare, or more than about other playwrights except Jonson (both copiously sourceable), which would make a very ugly sentence, or we use more inclusive language, as we did before and spare the readers. Smatprt knows very well how crucial this is: the premise to the alternative authorship theories is that suspiciously little is known about Shakespeare, whereas the counter-argument is that there is nothing unusual in the amount known about Shakespeare at all. We need to live with consensus versions, whether we agree with them or not. (There's much I disagree with in the article, including the inclusion of the authorship section, but I am willing to go with consensus.) I don't want this improving article to self-destruct again at the next FAC over the authorship question. I don't edit war, which is why I am raising this here. qp10qp 02:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatprt, accusing Qp of blackmail is not really appropriate, since he (she?) is doing the final bit of work on this article for us without even being asked.  I can see some of your concerns may be valid.  I just wish you had posted this here before changing the article.  It may have gone better that way. Anyway, let's take a look at what you have to say... Wrad 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Smatprt, all I want you to do is to leave the authorship parts alone. If you do that, there will be no issue. I am simply telling you what will cause problems at the FAC. Just please stop editing the authorship parts, because inch by inch you are moving them towards controversiality again. I know you mean well and can't see this point of view; but if you don't retreat from editing the authorship parts, you will torpedo the FAC, if only because of all the unseemly arguing that will result. It's not a reliable sources issue any more—we've solved that—it's a balance issue: please stop throwing extra words and phrases at it.qp10qp 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad edit to "Authorship question"

message: If this article is confined to only citing "academic sources" there would be no article. It is, by its very nature, a controversy. Contributors to the controversy are not usually in academic institutions but this does nor mean they are too stupid to assemble a cogent argument. Neither does it mean their standards of investigation are necessarily lower than those in academia. Usually, Wikipedia does not attempt to evaluate arguments, it being sufficient that they originated from a scholarly source. That will not work here. These controversial arguments must be evaluated and, of course, they must rely on cited evidence (which is different from citing academic opinion). The best one can hope for is a balance of conflicting views, and space must be allowed to state the arguments of all sides. The danger is that a supporter of one of these controversial viewpoints might attempt to force a particular point of view (bias the article). In this case, I recommend issuing a warning and possibly a ban because this behaviour destroys the efforts of the group to balance the article. (Puzzle Master 13:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is continuing at Talk:Shakespearean authorship question#Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article. I suggest any comments go there, rather than here. AndyJones 12:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Following other visitors here, I shall post my analysis where I think appropriate. I laugh at your presumption of superiority in these forums. Unless I'm mistaken you have no more rights here than anyone else. (Puzzle Master 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I have no more rights here than anyone else. And, of course, you may post your comments wherever you think appropriate. AndyJones 18:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard for Shakespeare Authorship article

message: From the style section: "He constantly matched telling phrases with telling actions" -- to me, this is not particularly clear.  Any alternate suggestions? Brandon Christopher 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's close to what was in the source, but I'll try to think of a different phrasing. Writing about style is murder.qp10qp 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awkward Phrase

message: I have a few problems with:
:William Shakespeare (IPA: ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪə] (RP) or ['wɪliəm 'ʃeɪkspɪɹ] (GA)) (baptised 26 April 1564 – died 23 April 1616)[I] English poet and playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist.
Firstly, is it a sentence? Where's the verb?
Secondly, why several pronounciations? The article has an English subject so isn't RP good enough? Even then does it really need to be labelled "RP"? If we argue for including the American pronounciation don't we then need to explain how to pronounce his name in the vernacular of every other nation Shakespeare had no connection with? 
Readability is awful. You get the guy's name, an open bracket, an abbreviation you probably don't recognise, a colon, a square bracket, a string of gobbledegook characters, some of them not supported on one of my computers, close square bracket open round bracket, another abbreviation you probably don't recognise, close round bracket, whoops, a word, where did that come from?, square bracket, more gobbledegook, close square bracket open round bracket, another obscure abbreviation, close a round bracket, close another round bracket, open another round bracket, abbreviated biographical data, close round bracket open square bracket, I, close square bracket, actually get into the prose of the not-quite-a-sentence which started a line ago.
I appreciate some of this guff is necessary, but can we tone it down a bit? AndyJones 13:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say cut out the American bit of IPA.  I've never seen that before.  The rest of it is pretty standard.  Add a verb, too ("is an"?) Wrad 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to keep the British IPA, myself.  Other playwright articles may not have it, but how many of those are FA? Wrad 20:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: On the absence of a verb, the Wikipedia Manual of Style says "If possible, the article’s title is the subject of the first sentence of the article, for example, “This Manual of Style is a style guide”.  The words "was an" therefore need to be reinserted. --GuillaumeTell 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is an obvious solution: leave only the RP. The AP is unnecessary because Americans, when reading the RP most times, pronounce words according to the GA anyway. The goobledeegook is there for those who can read the IPA. If you must deign to include the GA, you should allow the Australian pronunciation too, so that I know how to pronounce Shakespeare's name, when in a bar with drunk Australians. 09:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't agree more. The first sentence of articles is where people dump all sorts of bits and pieces; if it's not nipped in the bud, we'll end up with Shakespeare's name in Chinese and things like that.qp10qp 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Since it appears I was reverted, please consider WP:LEAD#Length. More then four paragraphs in lead are not recommended.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my comments above in "1st para" section. In any case, jamming the sentences together to make one paragraph doesn't make it any shorter, and changing topics in the middle of a graf is a worse sin than having one more paragraph than the general recommendation.Tom Reedy 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LEAD]] guideline

message: The cited work (Schoenbaum, A Compact Documentary Life) doesn't actually support the claim that there is a tradition of 3 days between birth and christening. In fact he says the opposite; the 3 days claim first appeared in Halliwell-Phillipps as a passing reference that "three days often elapsed" (my emphasis), was misconstrued as fact by Sidney Lee in "Life of William Shakespeare", and ran rampant from there. The relevant Schoenbaum cite is rather “Actually no evidence demonstrates that such a customary interval ever obtained.” He then goes on to quote the guidance from the Prayer Book of 1559, and concludes that one can “reasonably infer that Shakespeare was born on either the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd—Friday, Saturday, or Sunday—of April 1564.” (my emphasis) Xover 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, but I didn't write that the 3-day rule was a tradition. I wrote that "children of the era were usually christened within 3 days of their birth," which seems to me to be consistent with Schoenbaum's passage. The idea that Sh. was born on the 23rd is tradition, though. (Actually Peter Farey did some research earlier this year and discovered that children were just as likely to have been christened on the same day they were born or up to a week later. IIRC, his thesis is that Sh. was probably christened on the day he was born because plague was rampant at the time.) Tom Reedy 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Schoenbaum writes is that there is no hard evidence to date it any closer than between 24 April 1563 (based on his reported age at the time of death) and 23 April 1564 (when he was christened). He explicitly disclaims that there ever was any "usual" interval. He then, based on the guidance in the Book of Prayer (which results in a lengthy calculation involving what holy days and superstitions are relevant), speculates that it may fall on one of three dates (but does not find grounds for picking a specific date). He explicitly dismisses this "tradition" as a misreading of Halliwell-Phillipps, which in turn was actually wrong to begin with (as you support by reference to Peter Farey). In other words, it's plain wrong to specify a given date in the article; and even if one does, the cited source not only does not support it but even directly contradicts it. I would suggest removing this sentence entirely; and possibly replacing it with a summation of Schoenbaum and a note that the 23rd is a common misunderstanding. Xover 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to reply twice yesterday but something screwed up. I just went ahead and made that change. Thanks for the accuracy check. Nobody alone can find them all. I see a lot of other inaccuracies in the article but I haven't gotten down that far yet. Tom Reedy 14:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the speedy (and elegant!) fix Tom! Xover 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "traditional" birth date 

message: I believe that everyone is extremely excited, since the Shakespeare article is almost fully-prepared for Featured Article Status.  However, I think that all of us working on the article should stop focusing on the beginning of the page and work on the lower sections.  The beginning is great, but now we should mainly improve the sections that don't have as much information.  I'm sorry, just my opinion.  If it's rude, don't hesitate to remove it.  Thanks, Meldshal42 21:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only trying to improve the awkward prose and ordering of paragraphs, working straight down from the top. I'm not trying to introduce new information, although I don't see how you can have a discussion about Shakespeare's style without quoting Kermode. Tom Reedy 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning 

message: What happened to it? Tom Reedy 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It disappeared but apparently Wrad fixed the problem.Tom Reedy 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monument image 

message: Both the William Shakespeare page and the Hamnet Shakespeare page say that Hamnet died of bubonic plague without citing  a source.  This is only speculation, and should either be identified as such with rewording or removed entirely.  No one knows how Hamnet Shakespeare died.  71.62.29.185 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me that this page does reference it in the next sentence. If it is speculation, that should be said, though. Wrad 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is speculation. His cause of death is unknown. Some sources say plague was epidemic in the year his death, but that is not borne out by the number of deaths in the Stratford register. Deaths didn't outpace bapisms until 1614. Tom Reedy 03:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hamnet Shakespeare 

message: I've perused the archives for information about references, and while checking references in the early life section I notice Manual for Hamlet: Original text and facing-pages translation into contemporary English, which is a junior-high/high school-level work that doesn't use citations. It is used three times as a reference, all of them from a general bio of Shakespeare near the beginning of the book, similar to all such generic bios used in editions of the plays. Are such sources acceptable references? I'm planning on replacing it with cites from Baldwin and Cressy.Tom Reedy 15:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. The facts are uncontentious, to be found in every biography of Shakespeare. Paul B 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most wikipedia pages, this one has been written by a range of people from different backgrounds. I think that source would be perfectly OK for an article which wasn't applying for FA status, but re-referencing from scholarly sources is always best, where it is possible. AndyJones 16:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Baldwin and Cressy are very specialised, however. Paul B 16:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References redux 

message: I have filed a complaint on the Administrator's forum [] against Smatprt for his alleged persistent minority POV editing of various Shakespeare-related articles. Anyone wishing to contribute testimony is welcome. (Felsommerfeld 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found it good policy not to get involved in battles between religious sects. Tom Reedy 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority POV complaint 

message: Is this a joke? The signature beneath his portrait is not anything William Shakespeare ever wrote. Where did it come from? Tom Reedy 06:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, it's a crude copy of the signature from Page 2 of the will. It's a very crude copy if so, however; compare the italic "h" to the secretary "h" of the original, for example. I'll replace it with a proper facsimile of the signature from Page 3 of the will. --Sbp 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. This should be resolved now. --Sbp 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Until very recently we had this one from the will. It was added a while ago by Singing Badger after BenJonson/Roger pointed out that the signature previously used (this one) was not even Shakespeare's. The latter even appeared on the Oxford University's page for years until the error was pointed out to them. Paul B 10:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha! That's funny as hell. Thanks for changing it, Sean. Tom Reedy 13:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was somebody named Zyxw on 13 June 2007. Tom Reedy 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if other articles don't have it, I like it.  I think it's classy.  I think it may be small, but that it is visually strong, as it gives the article a direct connection to the person.  I'd like all writer articles to have these, personally. Wrad 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it shouldn't be in the article, just maybe not in the box. At one time it was in a box by itself, and it was larger, and I liked that better, but I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Tom Reedy 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature 

message: I don't know if y'all have discussed this or no, but I think this part of the intro needs citations, so whoever wrote the original copy should know where the info came from.
Shakespeare greatly influenced subsequent theatre and literature through his innovative use of plot, language, and genre, and even influenced the English language itself. Many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage. Among literary and dramatic critics, Shakespeare is probably best known for creating completely-realised characters capable of expressing the wide range of human experience at a time when dramatic characters were either flat or merely archetypes. Thus even villains such as Macbeth and Shylock can command the audience's understanding -- if not sympathy -- because they are portrayed as recognizably flawed human beings, not monsters.
I'm also not satisfied with it as it stands and plan on rewriting it later when I get the time. Sh. may be best-known among dramatic critics for his characters (and also by his audiences), but among literary critics he's best known for his use of language. Tom Reedy 03:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is still in the article, changed a bit, so I suppose I could get the cites from there when I get around to it unless somebody beats me to it (a consummation devoutly to be wished!). Right now I'm slowly making my way down graf-by-graf, and it's very slow. Looking ahead I think the style section needs some research and rewriting, the critical reputation section looks really good, and the authorship section needs maybe a couple of more grafs. That's just what I can see by a cursory scan. Tom Reedy 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need cites? 

message: Can we do something about London and theatrical career? It is too disjointed. RedRabbit1983 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is. I'm planning to tighten and rewrite it after I remove the inaccuracy in the last graf in early life. It'll be a couple of days, tho.Tom Reedy 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be back in a couple of days, then. RedRabbit1983 15:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some good edits to the introduction. I'd also like to move the sentence "His works have been performed all over the world and translated into every major living language" to the end of the first graf. Whuddya think?Tom Reedy 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up to you. I'm indifferent on the matter. RedRabbit1983 16:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it seems to me that sometimes there are no clearly-defined principles behind edits (as I set forth above in "1st para"), and I wanted to discuss it if you had any objections. My rationale is that the reader should be able to get an overview of the subject just from reading the introductory section, and the introductory graf to that section should be a digest of the most important reasons why the subject is important. The global POV of his importance would be a nice expansion of the previous English POV.Tom Reedy 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London and theatrical career

message: The way I read it, it seems to indicate that John Davies wrote Playing Companies and Commerce in Shakespeare's Time, which -- unless claims of a zombie horde of Shakespeare critics are accurate -- strikes me as highly improbable.  Am I just reading it wrong?Brandon Christopher 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, I think. Wrad 22:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note 38

message: I like the way Andy has moved the monument picture so the effigy isn't looking off the page. Is there any way it could move up a bit so the type could wrap to lose the white space? Also the introductory section has a lot of white space. Is that Wikipedia standard or can the contents table box be shifted to landscape with columns inside? Or is this even worth consideration? Tom Reedy 21:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty standard, but I personally think the TOC is getting a bit long.  A simple fix would be to simply bold the play categories in the Bibliography, rather than giving them headings. Wrad 22:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just implemented my own proposal.  The TOC is now shorter. What white space is left is kind of inevitable, now, and pretty standard for Wikipedia. Wrad 03:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures and white space 

message: This article is really starting to look good. It seems everyone working on it is trying to make it the best article possible instead of trying to further their agendas. When I first looked at this page 10 days ago, Shakespeare was creating human beings and some of the sentences seemed to be Babel Fish translations, and now it reads a lot better and looks much more professional. Tom Reedy 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's getting better, I agree. RedRabbit1983 07:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lookin' good! 

message: How far off is this article from a second application as a FAC? RedRabbit1983 07:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope at least a month. I see lots wrong with it still, and I'm only about 25 percent done with what I want to do. My problem is I have another project I'm working on simultaneously, plus the unreasonable demands of that pesky job I have. Tom Reedy 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm hoping for 1 August. This is my number one target between now and then. If it seems as if I'm not editing it at the moment, it's because I'm researching a complete overhaul of "Works" (minus "Poems", which I think is fine now). This involves a lot of reading (I've just read Shapiro, and I'm noting Bradley at the moment).qp10qp 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good good. Works is the weakest part of the article as it stands. RedRabbit1983 16:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: Although Susanna married Dr John Hall,[48] there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today.[49] Judith married Thomas Quiney but all of their children died very young,[50] and Susanna's daughter Elizabeth Hall died in 1670, marking the end of Shakespeare's lineage.[49]
I don't like the first sentence. Why, for instance, does it have "Although Susanna..." and not "Although Judith..."? I think perhaps this should be rewritten. RedRabbit1983 14:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The only thing that makes Susanna more notable than Judith in this respect is that her daughter lived the longest. I'm not actually wowed by the information that there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today; but at least we could restrict ourselves to making the point once, rather than twice. The "although" and "but" are unnecessary. "Susanna married John Hall, and their daughter..." (or something like that) would do the job.qp10qp 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the repetition "there are no direct descendants of Shakespeare alive today" - "marking the end of Shakespeare's lineage" necessary? RedRabbit1983 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No.qp10qp 01:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so. RedRabbit1983 01:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Later years

message: Many of Shakespeare's plays are ranked among the greatest of Western literature.[54] They have been translated into every major living language[55] and are continually performed all over the world.
Can we either expand this or cut it? I cannot prevent myself from yawning every time I read it. RedRabbit1983 16:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with it? The lead is supposed to establish the most notable things about the subject.  This seems to qualify. Wrad 17:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with RR. Looking through the previous peer reviews and FACs, I noticed this sort of thing was slammed every time. The second sentence could certainly be rewritten as if it were less of a boast.qp10qp 17:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I quoted it from the Works section. RedRabbit1983 00:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: In 1596 Shakespeare moved to the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate.[36] In 1598 he appeared at the top of a list of actors in Every Man in His Humour by Ben Jonson,[37] and his name was featured on the title pages of published quartos—a sign that his name itself was a selling point for the volume.
These sentences look disjointed, and the first could do with expansion. RedRabbit1983 01:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but the second sentence is wrong.Tom Reedy 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London and theatrical career

message: Hello all,
I'm new to Wikipedia talk pages, but wanted to propose a new link at the bottom of the Shakespeare page: www.speak-the-speech.org.  In the spirit of full disclosure, the link is to a nonprofit, which I started, devoted to distributing free unabridged audio productions of Shakespeare's plays online in the style of old time radio.  Please check it out and see if you think it would be a helpful link from this article.  We only have five plays now available, but there are many more soon coming as we've been collaborating with other companies to donate recordings as well.  If for some reason you do not think this would be a valuable resource to which this article should link, please let me know why-- we are striving to provide free productions that are helpful to students, teachers, and anyone with an interest in Shakespeare, and will appreciate your feedback.  Thank-you.
SIncerely,
Peter Pressman
Pspressman 16:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote no because there are literally hundreds of free resources out there, and we can't list all of them. Nor is it the mission of Wikipedia to provide exhaustive links to everything Shakespearian on the Internet. That's Google's job. Tom Reedy 17:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I've been wondering about this heading for a while; it just doesn't feel right. Is what follows strictly a bibliography? (biblio- really means "book-"). Although there are certainly books on the lists (the poetry books), our giving no publication details means the lists don't resemble bibliographies of the normal sort, which tend to be lists of scholarly works used by or useful to scholars. And works such as Cardenio could never be found in a book anyway because they are lost. I wonder if "List of works" (or something) might be a better title for this section. Any comments? qp10qp 00:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also thought it confusing.  It's common to list, say, a director's filmography, so I guess this was named along the same vein.  I like your idea for a name change. We could even shorten it to "Works". Wrad 01:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, we've got a section called "Works" already.qp10qp 02:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about renaming that section "Plays and poems" and change "Bibliography" to "Works." "Bibliography" reminds me of a works cited. And why not go ahead and cut "Many of Shakespeare's plays are ranked among the greatest of Western literature.[54] They have been translated into every major living language[55] and are continually performed all over the world." It's just a repetition of the introductory section. Tom Reedy 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the fact that it is repetitious is a problem.  The intro is supposed to be a repetition/summary of what the rest of the article already says. It's pretty common for sentences, especially sentences introducing a section, to mimic the intro, even in FA articles. Wrad 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact that it is in the intro counts against it appearing later. The reader, at this point, is likely to groan, "Not this again! I thought its token appearance in the intro was enough." Unless there is specific information, its value is nought. RedRabbit1983 13:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Greene’s attack is also the first notice of Shakespeare’s career as an actor, and biographers speculate his career began anywhere from the mid-1580's to just before Greene’s attack.[36][37]Chambers, WS, i 59.</ref>From 1594 his plays were performed exclusively by the playing company variously known as the Lord Chamberlain's Men (1594-96, 1597-1603) and Lord Hunsdon's Men (1596-97), a troupe owned by a partnership of profit-sharing players that included Shakespeare.<Schoenbaum, Compact, 184.</ref> It became the leading theatrical company in London, and after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603 it was transferred to royal patronage by the new king, James I, and thereafter became known as the King's Men (1603-42).[38] Evidence from both internal and external sources indicate that Shakespeare tailored the roles in his plays to the individual members of the troupe, changing his characters as membership in the company changed.[39]
Fix references, please. RedRabbit1983 05:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sorry; I'll be more careful in the future. Tom Reedy 12:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So will I. I've been guilty of much worse errors. :) RedRabbit1983 13:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Alongside the traditional, sanctified Shakespeare, icon of Western culture, a postmodern Shakespeare has evoloved, adaptable to politicised interpretation and the needs of a diversified cultural market.
This is in need of explanation. RedRabbit1983 11:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems like baloney to me. Soi disant "postmodernists" often construct an implausible straw man of "sanctified Shakespeare" in order to point out the obvious fact that the texts have been re-read and reinterpreted over history. It might be worth pointing to the increased emphasis on S as a professional and commercial writer as well as on the appropriation of S's works to various ideologies, but I think the opposition between 'sanctified' and 'postmodern' is far too crude - and is ultimately misleading. Paul B 11:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I cut the sentence for now? RedRabbit1983 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Paul B 11:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've cut it. It was a replacement for another one of those "Shakespeare is the greatest and most famous throughout the world" passages. As far as I could understand while wading through the gobbledegook of postmodern critical theory (which does have to be summarised here somewhere), Shakespeare is no longer regarded as sacrosanct in many critical and cultural contexts and is instead adapted to fit alternative agendas than those of the traditional western canon. But I think this is covered well enough by the previous sentence, now I come to look at it.qp10qp 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentence

message: At the risk of sounding petty, I can't help but bring up this sentence:
Shakespeare may have written his own epitaph:
It sounds rather weak as a concluding sentence, and interrupts the flow. Does anyone have any ideas to improve it? RedRabbit1983 15:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, delete it. It's unsupported speculation. While he may have written it (it is in the first person), he may not have, and it's a very minor point. I think of more importance would be the monument inscription that compares him to Virgil and testifies to his contemporary reputation. Tom Reedy 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Get rid of it. AndyJones 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another sentence

message: Public records indicate that Shakespeare commuted between London and Stratford during his career. According to tax records, in 1596 Shakespeare lived in the parish of St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, when he was in London.
I never liked these sentences. I suggest removing "Public records indicate" and "According to tax records", which sap the prose by asserting the ideas too cautiously. Put them in a footnote if necessary. According to my friend, there shouldn't be a comma before "when".
He was granted the honour of burial in the chancel, not on account of his literary fame but for purchasing a share of the tithe of the church for £440.
The expression "not on account of... but for..." is awkward and unnecessary. I suggest removing the "not on account of..."; the reader can make the connection himself. RedRabbit1983 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right; it's an old journalese habit. I'll rewrite and instead of a fn, I'll find an appropriate cite. Tom Reedy 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and the comma before "when" is to set off the previous geographical name, "Bishopgate," not to set off the subordinate clause following. Tom Reedy 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When this is rewritten, may I put in a plea for the removal of the word "commuted" (in the sentence quoted first up above), and the subsitution of something less modern-sounding.  It currently reads (to me, at least) as if he caught the 0845 train down to London every morning and came back on the 1715 in the evening. Something like "lived alternately in London and Stratford throughout his career", perhaps. --GuillaumeTell 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentences

message: Anyone who REALLY knows "Shake-spear" and then reads all they can about the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, surely becomes convinced that they are one and the same person.
I have written 4 plays on the Earl's life (as "Shake-spear") which seek to redress the gigantic injustice done to him, and am happy to provide brief FREE EXCERPTS -- simply email mmckern@optusnet.com.au
Thank you.
Marie McKern—
:What would most interest us is peer-reviewed, scholarly sources making your claims, fictional accounts of Oxford's life aren't really going to help much. Wrad 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oxford was "Shake-spear"!!! 

message: The "later years" section is only about his death and burial. Should it be retitled? Tom Reedy 03:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Maybe "Final years, will and burial"? --GuillaumeTell 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Later years" or "last years" or "death?" 

message: As it stood, the graf implied that Shakespeare bought his house with money made years later, and it also confused the reader about the roles of the various syndicates--the players and the householders. Tom Reedy 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion in London and theatrical career