Talk:Lady Macbeth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me preface this review by saying that this is a bit of therapy for me. I thought I would do a GA review as an act of good wiki citizenship, and lighted on an article that had multiple, serious problems. As you can imagine, my review was not well-received by the principle editor, who I think is probably pissed off enough to take a whack at me if he could. So I felt the need to do yet another review, this time of an article that I could praise boldly. And here I have it.

If you got this far in the review, you already got the idea. I like the article. I think it worthy of GA status.

I will start with a general observation, then do a point-by-point review of the GA criteria.

General comment
My main concern with this article is one of policy, and not with the article itself. I come from the WikiProject Classical music. There we have a rule that there are no articles about parts of pieces. So, for example, you would not write an article about the Chopin Funeral March, but would include all the information on the march in the article on Piano Sonata No. 2 (Chopin). I wonder if the same rule ought not be discussed at your Wikiproject. I know, for example, that the handwashing scene is very well known, perhaps even in its own right, but is it right to make a separate article on it? Wouldn't it be better to make it part of the article on Macbeth, with a redirect for people who looked specifically for the scene?

In the case of characters, the problem is perhaps more difficult. Still, you might want to raise this issue in the project, and develop a policy.

GA criteria
Well Written

(a) The prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct. Well, what else would you expect from a bunch of editors who write about Shakespeare?

I do, however, question your use of the word "antagonist". Macbeth is indeed the bad guy, but I wonder if he could be called the antagonist. Who, then, is the protagonist? You might get around this by calling him the tragic hero, but I'm not sure that's right, either. Well, think about it.

(b) It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. I am a former newspaper journalist, and my preference is for short, punchy leads. I know that in the Wikipedia, longish, and sometimes rambling leads are the standard. In the case of this article. I trimmed the lead a bit before writing the review. I think it could be trimmed even more, but that is largely a matter for your discretion. It is already GA level.

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. There is one sentence that I marked as needing a reference (there was another citation-needed tag in the article, but I added the citation myself). Please provide a reference for this post-haste. I don't want to put the GA on hold just for this, but I am trusting y'all to fix this quickly, so I don't look like a sap.

(b) It provides in-line citations from reliable sources.

Broad in its coverage

(a) It addresses the main aspects of the topic. I am not an expert in Macbeth (aside from having read it now and again), but I am wondering if there are other analyses of the Lady Macbeth character that should be included. I found a discussion of the character by Sarah Siddons, which I added to the article. It seems to me you have gathered up the main analyses, but if there are others, they should be mentioned, if only in the "Further Reading" section. After all, she is such an interesting character, I would be surprised if more people hadn't written about her.

(b) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. The issue here is how much do you synopsize the play in the article. It is probably tempting to include a blow-by-blow of the action from beginning to end. I think you have done a good job of keeping it tight and still including all the salient stuff.

Neutral

I do a lot of editing of articles on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and there neutrality is the gris eminence of the project. Coming from there, it is hard for me to imagine what there is to be non-neutral about in this article. You tell me: are there any major academic controversies about this character?

Stable

It is stable.

Illustrated

Quite nicely.

And so, by the power vested in me by absolutely no one, I hereby declare this to be a Good Article.

And I just want to add that your article has inspired me to read Macbeth yet again.

Regards,

--Ravpapa (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)