Talk:Hamnet Shakespeare/GA1

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

The actual content in this article about Hamnet Shakespeare could be written on the head of a pin. The article may better serve Wikipedia by being merged into a larger article, er .... something like "Shakespeare's children" or "Scholarly speculation about Shakespeare's descendants"? The article passes the Good article criteria for good spelling, good grammar, good punctuation, good footnoting, good this, good that, blahblahblah that I'm tempted to pass it but I'm going to ask for a second opinion. Maybe someone has an idea about "beefing up" this article before it blows itself off the page! LOL! ShaShaJackson (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is about all that can be said about the guy. Don't worry about the length. There are many, many short GAs, such as Robin Starveling and Philostrate. Wrad (talk) 04:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm worried about the factual content. There's simply not enough factual content about HS to warrant an article. A couple of dates, died of unknown causes, fraternal twin, son of Shakespeare...as I said, the facts about the kid could be written on the head of a pin. 98% of the article is scholarly speculation about where the boy was raised, whether he inspired the composition of Hamlet or whether he was the model for the minor character of Sebastian in Twelfth Night. Speculation, speculation, speculation...OR and POV. Change the article title to "Scholarly speculation about Hamnet Shakespeare" (which, in truth, is what the article is about) reorganize the article slightly, and you have a nice little section in a larger article about "Shakespeare's children". ShaShaJackson (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm shocked at your accusation that this is OR and POV and I believe this accusation comes from a lack of understanding of wiki policy. This information comes from scholarly journals which are peer reviewed by experts in the field before publication. It is the furthest thing from OR and POV. NPOV is when you balance the differing opinions of experts in the field. That is what we have done. OR is when you ignore the opinions of experts and just write your own ideas. That is what we have not done. I really don't like your tone here at all, especially your little quib about renaming this "Scholarly speculation about Hamnet Shakespeare". Everything in literature studies is speculation. Please familiarize yourself with the field before making snide remarks. Wrad (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned about the statement "There is very little information about Hamnet's upbringing." This statement suggests there is some information about the kid's upbringing, but that information is not disclosed in the article. The statement may send the reader on a wild goose chase trying to track such information down. Include that "very little information" in the article or amend the statement to read, "There's no information about HS's upbringing except scholarly speculation." While this article has a tsunami of references, it has very little factual content about HS, Cut the padding, the repetition, and the scholarly speculation and there's not much about Hamnet Shakespeare here - certainly not enough to warrant an article. ShaShaJackson (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have outlined outline everything that is known. We know when he was born, we think we know who he was named after, and probably where he grew up. That is the "very little information about Hamnet's upbringing" that you seem to think we're hiding from you. It's all there. You're reading way too much into this. This article has nearly 20 citations and is nowhere near being in need of a merge. Especially since his twin sister's article is huge since she lived to old age. We simply don't have the space to merge. Nor is it really to small to be it's own article by any means at all, as I have already shown by the GAs Robin Starveling and Philostrate. Beyond all of this, GA is not the place to have merge or deletion discussions. You really aren't making any sense and I request a second opinion. Wrad (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Judith should be summarized in a "Shakespeare's children" article, with a "See main article" direct. I've all ready requested a second opinion and I think it very childish of you to request one when you see you're not going to get what you want.


 * This article merits GA status ONLY on its mastery of the basics of composition and NOT on its very slim factual content. There is simply not enough content in this article to merit a stand alone article much less a GA article. I'll give you a GA on this but ONLY if you understand that it is given not on content, but on a mastery of the basics of composing a WP article. ShaShaJackson (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that the reviewer has already requested a second opinion on the GAC page. I am however a little concerned that in his review he says he's “tempted to pass it” while on GAN he writes “I'm tempted to fail it”. Quite apart from the inconsistency, asking for a second opinion in such negative terms cannot but influence any second reviewer. In any case, since I cannot from the current review comments find any instances of violations of WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:SYN (which I interpret the reviewer's “Speculation, speculation, speculation...OR and POV” comment to mean)—and the initial review indicated that the reviewer thought the article met all the GA Criteria—I think we must assume the later comments are just general suggestions for how to improve the article and not objections to the GA nomination as such. --Xover (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to pass it because it meets the GAC - good spelling, good grammar, good sentence structuce, good prose, good footnoting, good this, good that, blahblahblah ... all the high school stuff in the GAC. But a GA WP article is something more than a display of an editor's mastery of the basics. A GA article should have content and the only real, factual content about the subject of this article is his dates, the unknown cause of death, his fraternal twin relationship, and his parents - hardly enough to merit a stand alone article that has the nerve to ask for GA status. Simply listing and footnoting the few facts about this kid's brief life does not a GA article make. If that were so, then every single kid of a celebrity deserves a GA article at WP. HS is NOT noteworthy save his parent and that is simply not enough to warrant a stand alone GA WP article in spite of the fact that Shakespearean scholars have written reams about him. At best, this article should be merged into a "Shakespeare's children" article examining, detailing, and collecting together all three kids. NONE of them are noteworthy, NONE of them are important in the greater scheme of things, and NONE deserve a stand alone article. Ditto for the characters of MND mentioned in this review - they should be collected together in two articles: "'Rude mechanicals' of MND" (with a stand alone article for Bottom) and "Minor characters in MND". As I indicated above, I'll give this article a GA but only on its mastery of the basics of WP article composition, not on its content (which is so slight as to be almost invisible.) ShaShaJackson (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, GA is not the place to express merge opinions. Precedent is not on your side here. Those other articles which you think should be merged (Philostrate and Robin Starveling) are, and have for a long time been, GAs. Hamnet Shakespeare is notable because of his father and because of what has been an endless debate about how his death influenced his father's writing. The article has nearly 15 citations from various authors. You are in no position to question the notability of this article. Wrad (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is so slight in content that it simply does not merit a PASS. Much scholarly debate about Shakespeare is speculation and while you've noted the various debates, the content is still so very very slim that it cannot be awarded GA status. There is some padding and repetition (giving the article the look of "length and weight" and thus scholarly importance) but should that padding and repetition be slashed there is very littel left. Try expanding the article before renomination. Tho I requested a second opinion on this, no one has responded so I assume there is no interest in taking it on. ShaShaJackson (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is your first GA review and you have barely over 500 edits to your name. I'm having trouble believing that you have any idea what you're talking about when it comes to what GA is and what Wikipedia policy is. You really don't seem to know what you're doing. You want to fail it. That is your opinion. Please leave it at that and let the other reviewer step in, as I think you've said what you've wanted to say and are starting to repeat yourself, and I am tired of repeating myself. I'm sure the 2nd reviewer will be more than capable of doing a review. Wrad (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I will pass the article based on a mastery of the basics of WP composition - not on actual content because there is so little about the article's subject (one or two sentences) that it is almost invisible. I have suggested ways to improve the article: expand or merge with a larger article about "Shakespeare's children" or "Scholarly speculation  about Hamnet Shakespeare". My suggestions however have met with derision, verbal abuse, and some very bad and immature behaviour. Let me know if you are copasetic with my criteria for PASS. ShaShaJackson (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with any of your suggestions and believe that they are based on a lack of knowledge of the subject and of the GA process and the processes of wikipedia as a whole. I eagerly await the second reviewer's comments. I believe I've done my best to be polite here in the face of what has been a schizophrenic and immature review. Wrad (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the GA process and as I've said, I'll pass the review based on GAC which only asks that the high school basics of composition are mastered. GAC asks nothing of content.  For me the article is a PASS on GAC basics and a FAIL on content. But that's not your fault. There is simply so little information about this kid that everything that can be said about him is summed up in one sentence: "Hamnet Shakespeare (birthdate-deathdate, of causes unknown) was the son of William and Anne Shakespeare and the fraternal twin of Judith Shakespeare. Those are ALL the facts about this kid. Hardly enough for GA. Hardly enough for a stand alone article.  The scholarly debates flesh the article out a bit but just barely. Nonetheless, the article meets GAC.  The article is so slight that if it passes it will open the door for an avalanche of similar slight articles all being awarded GA status because they contain a few sentences and a few citations. I look forward to the second opinion because I need some input on this. ShaShaJackson (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we should just completely ignore what the scholars have said about him? Not a feasible idea. 90% of everything in literature is speculation. One scholar comes up with a possible idea, others respond, over time more and more begin to agree on one or two theories that seem likely. This article is not slight at all, nor is it just "padding". It is serious scholarship. It is a reflection of the scholarly process. I would hope that you would respect that. Wrad (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Saw this brought up on the GA talk page, so wanted to offer my opinion. First of all, I think both of you need to step back and calm down. If the reviewer decides to fail it then that is their decision, just as it is the editor's decision whether or not to challenge that fail at WP:GAR. This argument is running in circles and becoming overheated, so step back and cool off both of you. Following that, I think that the reviewer's inexperience is a problem here: since they seem to be confused about the GA criteria, it might be better to either allow a second reviewer to take over (and for them to observe the process) or to put the article up at GAR to gain a wider community assessment (for the record I would probably !vote to pass this). --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the pocess and as I noted the article passes the GAC. What the editor refuses to recognize however, is the fact that this article is NOT about Hamnet Shakespeare (how could it be, there is practically nothing known about the kid), but about the scholarly debates surrounding him. This article can be improved by investigating those debates and expanding the article to REAL GA status by publishing those investigations and info here which would make for a very interesting article. As the article stands, the editor has tantalized us with these debates but let us down by not giving us much info.  The article should be retitled "Debates about Hamnet Shakespeare". The lead might begin, "Scholarly debates have surrounded Hamnet Shakespeare, the only son of William and Anne Shakespeare, for many years. Very little is known about Hamnet, but some scholars have suggested his death was the spur that set his father to the composition of Hamlet etc. etc." The article should be expanded to gain GA status and investigating the debates is one way of doing this because there is nothing more to say about the facts of Hamnet's life. Hamnet's life doesn't make a GA article but the debates surrounding him could. They need to be expanded and elaborated here. ShaShaJackson (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent again) Yes, you've already said all that, which why I suggested you take a step back. You say the article passes, yet so far you haven't passed it: you need to decide whether the article a) passes, in which case do so, or b) doesn't, in which case it will almost certainly go to GAR. Your arguments for fail are valid to a degree, but I'm afraid I don't find them very convincing as they seem to be based on your personal interpretation of WP:Notability (which is not a criteria under GA critera).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Regards the article (in a sort of uninvited second opinion), it might be worth 1) explaining what the alternate origin of Hamlet was, 2) explaining more clearly on what grounds Wheeler and Bryson have attributed the origin of these scenes to Shakespeare's grief? 3) The sentence that begins "The names Hamlet and Hamnet . . ." seems to sort of contradict the one that came before it, perhaps it should be moved elsewhere in the section? --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I think ShaSha would agree with you on that. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've placed the article on hold for one week as some suggestions for improvement have been made by another editor as well as myself and plenty of time is granted for working on those improvements. At this point, the article is soooooooooooooooooo slight I'm having a difficult time seeing it as a GA. Passing it opens the door to awarding GA status to similar slight articles. ShaShaJackson (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Jackyd101 has asked you nicely twice to step down as a reviewer. Will you please comply? I do not intend to respond to you suggestions any more than I already have. Wrad (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to stick my nose where it's uninvited, but I have to concur with the nominator. This is a GA review and is, therefore, not the place to apply WP:N (there is a separate process for that; even a peer review would be a more appropriate spot), nor do the GA criteria say anything about minimum length. If I might be so bold, I chose not to review this article specifically because I didn't like the length - that, however, is a personal opinion and makes me a bad candidate for a reviewer as I wouldn't be able to look at the GA criteria impartially. I should point out, however, that I see no precedent for asking for an entirely new reviewer (only second opinions). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I wish I hadn't gotten involved in this one. Anyway, as I noted above, the article "passes" based solely on the GAC. However, the article is sooooooooooooooooo slight, my gorge rises every time I look at it. I am astonished beyond words that an editor would have the nerve to seek GA status for this trifle. I'm concerned that if I pass it, I'll be opening the door to an avalanche of similar trifles all seeking GA status based solely on meeting a GAC any high school kid can master in moments. The GA backlog will reach the crack of doom.  I shouldn't be concerned. I don't have a cent invested in WP. I'm thinking of contacting an administrator on this one to step in to do the pass/fail. I'm sort of new to this sort of thing and I don't want to open a door to an avalanche no one will want to shovel their way through. ShaShaJackson (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep things civil here; no need to make comments about the nominator having "nerve" or anything else. Wrad is a very experienced and well-respected editor; no one is "in the wrong" here on either side of the fence. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shasha, if you insist on ignoring the GA criteria and sticking with your notability tack, you might as well fail this article right now, because I am not going to respond to that request. If you don't either back out now or fail the article now, I will withdraw the nomination and move immediately to GAR. I am not going to waste any more time with a reviewer who has no respect for the criteria. Wrad (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, since you haven't responded, I am withdrawing this nomination and renominating it immediately. This is a wonderful opportunity for you to take your own advice and choose not to review it. Someone else should come along and take it soon. Wrad (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)