Talk:Baconian theory of Shakespeare authorship/GA2

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I am triggering the GAR process here, having come across this article largely by accident. To pre-empt a few possible charges: I am an uninvolved editor in the content area; I have no view about the so called Shakespearean authorship question; and I am an experienced GA editor, having done over 80 of these things in the last two years.

Now to the GA guidelines: 1.Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * Yes, in general. But there are structural problems. For example, under the heading "History of Baconian theory", the WP article does not give a general introduction to Baconian theory at all, but launches straight into purported evidence in support of the theory.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * I'm not considering this criterion at present.

2.Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
 * Not even close. This is an article about a highly contentious topic. Its sourcing is woefully inadequate, even to the extent of providing not one citation to the first paragraph characterising the mainstream view about Shakespeare. Other citations are not adequate or not sufficient for the facts in hand. One example: "In 1867, in the library of Northumberland House, one John Bruce happened upon a bundle of bound documents, some of whose sheets had been ripped away [cite]" links to some manuscript pages on some website. Then (and thereafter in that para) there are no cites to any reliable sources at all, and none therefore for the various facts and arguments made in the para. I did start to add some maintenance templates to identify issues, but instances of inadequate citation are too numerous to individually identify. Editors should approach the article on the principle that, as a contentious fringe theory, every claim and argument needs a citation, and it needs to be to a modern, reliable source.

(c) it contains no original research.
 * On the contrary, it appears to be littered with it, but it is a complex case, because that original research is disguised by the existence of citations to other works.
 * Example: "After a diligent deciphering of the Elizabethan handwriting in Francis Bacon's wastebook, the Promus of Formularies and Elegancies, Constance Mary Fearon Pott (1833–1915) noted that many of the ideas and figures of speech in Bacon's book could also be found in the Shakespearean plays." This has no citation. The next sentence has a cite to a book by Potts, but she herself cannot be a citation for whether or not her work was "diligent" - this is original research (as may be the rest of the sentence).
 * Example: "Some time subsequent to Shakespeare's expiry, Jonson tackled the panoptic task of setting down the First Folio and casting away the originals. This was in 1623, when Bacon had lapsed into penury. Jonson would have been keen to allay his friend's straits, and the folio's yield would have fitted the bill nicely." This is a simple case, as it lacks any citations at all.
 * Example: "On November 1610, conscious that the criticisms of the returning colonists might jeopardise the recruitment of new settlers and investment, the Virginia Company published the propagandist True Declaration (TD) which was designed to confute “such scandalous reports as have tended to the disgrace of so worthy an enterprise” and was intended to “wash away those spots, which foul mouths (to justify their own disloyalty) have cast upon so fruitful, so fertile, and so excellent a country”." This is followed by a cite - but the cite is only the source for the material in quote marks. So the previous claims in the text such as "conscious that the criticisms of the returning colonists might jeopardise the recruitment of new settlers and investment" represent original research: an explanation by an author of the WP article that does not rely on the source.
 * Example: "There is an example in Troilus and Cressida (2.2.163) which shows that Bacon and Shakespeare shared the same interpretation of an Aristotelian view:..." there is no citation to a reliable secondary source for this claim that they share the world view. These are a few examples from a potentially very long list.

3.Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Given that this is a fringe theory in the first place, and the extent of origial research, the article does not meet this criterion.

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * The article does not appear to sufficiently deal with the fact that this is a fringe theory, though this may be partly an impression given by the overly long and original research-littered central sections making the case for Bacon. Balance is also undermined by giving the fringe theorists a voice even in the section that is supposed to st out the mainstream view (see para beginning "Critics of the mainstream view have challenged most if not all of the above assertions...")

5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Judging by the talk pages, including Talk:Baconian theory/GA1, if there is any stability, it has been achieved through fatigue or lack of interest of editors. There does not appear to be a consensus around content. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will leave a week for editors to respond, but it will take a great amount of revision for this article to maintain GA status. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with every point of Hamiltonstone's assessment, save I think the prose is convoluted, fractured, and tortuously oblique in places. There are any number of reliable secondary sources on this topic, but their use in this article is perfunctory at best. In my opinion the article needs a complete rewrite using WP:RS secondary sources and conforming to WP:FRINGE guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware that a related article, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship has been proposed for merger with Shakespearean authorship question. The same may be about to be proposed for Baconian theory. I do not intend to engage with that issue here, although I note that effort made toward trying to improve an article that will then be merged (and possibly substantially altered in the merge process) could be frustrating for editors. That notwithstanding, my concern at present is with the quality rating this article has, which in my view it should not. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should not. IMO if it is so fundamentally flawed as to require a rewrite (which it is), deletion is appropriate. There's no doubt it is notable and deserves mention—if not an article—in Wikipedia, but to my mind sponsoring a soapbox is worse than having no article at all. If not deletion, it should be cut down to a stub to foster an appropriately neutral article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked to see what the article looked like when it received Good Article status, but I don't think it deserves it currently. For example, structurally speaking, the critical response section has refutations of arguments regarding Shakespeare's education, but these arguments are not currently stated in the main body of the article. At least one reference tag is not a true reference, but rather an uncited footnote. I'm wary of the desire to delete the article, but rewriting is definitely in order. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, some of the word choices in the article are rather peculiar. I would not be surprised to find that some sections have been plagiarized. Sadly, these sections lack citations. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the diff between when it was rated and now. Not much difference that I can see. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delisting. Too far from GA and not readily addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I cut the passage in the "Mainstream View" section that set out criticisms of the "Mainstream View", on the grounds that such criticisms were the subject of the rest of the article, and that WP encourages us to be bold in editing and not leave material in which we think is out of place or otherwise inappropriate. (I personally think that this article is too long and gives far too little space to the fact that the Baconian theory of Shakespeare's authorship is absolutely a fringe theory, with about as much credibility as flat earth theory and intelligent design.) Lexo (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)