Talk:Sonnet 25

Referencing
This page has had a format footnotes template since October 2014. Bracketed inline referencing was being used, so I adjusted the references into a shortened footnote style. I was not able to provide page numbers as I do not have these books, so please help provide those if you have them available.

As it stands now this page is still in need of more inline citations, so I have added a more citations needed template to the top of the article. Please help if you can! Thanks, Tkbrett (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this! These articles are in desperate need of some tender love and care, so much appreciated! I have access to at least some of these works, so I can try to dig up the page numbers when I have the time. Do please ping me if it looks like I've forgotten about it (not at all unlikely, I'm afraid). --Xover (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ugh. And looking at the article it definitely has bigger issues than the format of footnotes! --Xover (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Inspired (depressed?) by this exchange, I began looking for pages in Duncan-Jones & Booth (which I have to hand) -- but quickly got distracted by the idea (which I've had in my head for a while) of working on relatively unified Significant Variants and Emendations sections for all germane sonnets (my initial estimate is that about 1/2 of the articles would need this). So I did that instead, as sort of a test run. I think this is a little better than what was there, and is more susceptible to expansion while keeping everything in its right place. Anyway, let me know if you have bright ideas for its improvement, as someday I may try to slap this on dozens more sonnet articles. At the moment, I've deleted this text:

"John Payne Collier is among the few critics to take this alternative [that is, worth / forth -pw] seriously. George Steevens opined that 'the quatrain is not worth the labor that has been bestowed on it.'"
 * ...because I felt it definitely called for a ref (or 2), and I don't have one. But it's interesting if accurate, and certainly could go back in. I may continue editing -- I hope that won't discourage you from doing the same, because I don't have it in me to do everything this article needs done. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, the above-mentioned deleted text has now been reinstated and cited. Phil wink (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently-added section
Thanks for contributing just about the first meat to this article's stone soup. As this article develops, don't you think your new section will be better divided up amongst others, say, the Essex bit going to the (still-to- be-rewritten) Context section, and the rest to subsections of Analysis -- instead of essentially having dueling Analysis and Leishman's analysis sections? Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that as it stands the section is a bit of a weird pseudo-structure all its own, and that it should probably be refactored to fit better. However, I'm not entirely sure what that structure should be just yet. What's nagging at my brain is something along the lines of a Critical history section, and similar structures that are roughly, but not entirely, equivalent to the current. But it hasn't really coalesced yet and it's entirely possible the status quo is the better approach. I'm planning to look for more coverage (I think there's a couple more, but not sure they're usable for our purposes), probably adding sections summing up any relevant takes, and that will hopefully make clearer what approach to take. --Xover (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential sources
Haven't reviewed yet, but both reference S25 ... just posting in case. Phil wink (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)