Talk:William Shakespeare/Archive 8

Is this required?
In the lead:

He is one of the few playwrights of the time considered to have excelled in both tragedy and comedy.

It doesn't say much, in my opinion. This particular point, though it may be deduced, is not mentioned in the body of the article, as such.

Nor is the following, really:

''Among literary and dramatic critics, Shakespeare is probably best known for creating realistic characters, capable of expressing the full range of human experience, in an era when dramatic characters were either flat or merely archetypes. Even villains such as Macbeth and Shylock could elicit understanding—if not sympathy—because they were portrayed as recognizably flawed human beings.''

It is all right not to have citations in the lead so long as citations for the same point may be found in the body of the article. This stuff needs a citation because it makes challengeable assertions about what Shakespeare is best known for, what other dramatic characters were like (other playwrights wrote rounded characters on occasion; DeFlores in The Changeling comes to mind as a villain who wins audience sympathy) and Macbeth being comparable to Shylock. Without cites, these points look like original thought, even if they are not. The point about Macbeth and Shylock also seems to me too particularised for the lead. None of these points are directly addressed in the body of the text.qp10qp 01:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I too have been wondering about the second passage you brought up. The fact is that while Shakespeare may be best known for his fully realized characters by dramatic critics, among actors Shakespeare is best known for writing characters with lots of space that actors can interpret and inhabit, and among literary critics Shakespeare is best known for his use of language, and among directors Shakespeare is more akin to a mine from which they can quarry ore and construct their own plays. So unless we're going to include all that, I don't know that we should say anything along that line.
 * The style section strikes me as similarly interpretive and maddeningly simplistic. Yes, it is referenced, but the references are chosen from a veritable endless supply of both similar and differing interpretations, and the end product doesn't really say anything all that useful. And I've said this before, but I don't see how any article on Shakespeare's style can fail to use Kermode or Booth as a reference. I don't know how to fix this, because what we're trying to do is cram an entire shelf of books into 500 words, but I think I need to bring it up, because it is unsatisfactory as it is.
 * Perhaps I'll look at other Shakespeare encyclopedia articles and see how they handle it. I don't recall ever doing so. Tom Reedy 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what I'll do is write the third paragraph of the lead simply as a summary of main parts of the article. This would mean that everything in it is covered by cites in the body of the article.


 * The relevant policy is: The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article.qp10qp 07:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * On "Style", the presence of this section in the article is slightly odd, and when you look through other encyclopedias and introductions to complete works (the latter, I think, are a good place to scout for standard principles of boiling Shakespeare down to a few thousand words), you will find no section on "style", as such (the Britannica has Poetic conventions and dramatic traditions, which is really about form, not Shakespeare's style, and is a better choice of section). Wikipedia's article Shakespeare's style doesn't really address style at all, but form (certainly an interesting subject) and generalities. So I believe that the unsatisfactoriness of the section stems from the decision to have it in the first place. I feel somewhat the same about "Performances" and "Speculation about Shakespeare", neither of which seem to occur as sections in other encyclopedias or introductions to complete works. In the case of "Performances", I had to really scrape about to make the contents fit the title, because we know relatively little about performances of Shakespeare's plays in his lifetime (and the history of Shakespearian performance throughout the centuries is beyond this article's remit), though speculation runs riot.


 * When you come to research "style", you will see that there is more in the present section than meets the eye. I tried to make it match the approach in the main sections of the article by telling a chronological story of sorts; this seems to me more useful than collecting general points about Shakespeare's style as if he had one style throughout his career (quite the opposite). The section is a complement to "Plays" in that it tells how Shakespeare began within the restrictions of conventional forms, found a freedom in the late nineties which produced his masterpieces of that period, and then began to do very unusual and idiosyncratic things with poetry, as we see in the tragedies, before breaking into a last original style for the late romances. I read [or groped through, in the second case—it's difficult, but definitive] two whole books on this process, Frye and McDonald; and I did not find their reading contradicted in the other books I looked at—the scholarship varies on specifics, of course, but the section's narrative of Shakespeare's stylistic development is fairly standard. The third paragraph attempts to address Shakespeare's style of story design, and for that I used Brian Gibbons (general editor of the Cambridge Shakespeare) as my first base. Although the resulting "Style" section may appear simplistic, it was the devil's job to write about such a thing in three paragraphs (took me a week)—but the section is accurate and well sourced and meets the requirements of FAC.qp10qp 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you say it meets the FAC requirement, then it's OK by me, cos I don't really want to get into it. Biography is my main interest in this article. I don't think I agree with you about "Performances" and "Speculation about "Shakespeare." "Performances" should be in some way tied to his rise in popularity and reputation in the 18th C., but I'm not sure how to go about it or whether I even want to. One of the reasons he became so popular is that there were no working playwrights at the beginning of the Restoration, and his plays were available in Folio and theatrical producers learned that he (unlike Jonson) could be revised to suit popular tastes (which is still going on today). While little real speculation about sexuality is going on (except for those obsessed about their own), the authorship "controversy" is well-known by the general public, and his religion has been chewed over quite well by scholars in search of dissertations for the last 40 years or so, so I don't think we can leave out a brief mention of those topics. However, I understand that any tinkering with the current passages (as unsatisfactory and inaccurate as they are) is liable to bring on another bitch fest, so if they meet FAC, I'll leave them alone. Tom Reedy 15:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying that the material shouldn't be included (and, like you, I can't be fagged to restructure the whole thing), just that these aren't headings I find in other encyclopedias. I would rather the Catholic and sexual stuff were folded into the biography and the performances stuff into the main plays material. I'm pretty sure we don't need eighteenth and nineteenth century performance history in this article, though, which is touched on where necessary in the "Critical reputation" section". qp10qp 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Later life edits
Most of the edits so far are good, but I have a few exceptions.

"He was buried in a prominent position in the chancel" makes it seems that he was buried standing up, perhaps with his right hand pointing to the sky. And we don't actually know if the posititon is all that prominent; there is some suspicion, based on a study by Stanley Wells of the burials in the church, that the grave marker might have been moved so it would be in front of the monument.

I don't think it's necessary to start at square one every time Rowe is mentioned again. His place as Shakespeare's first biographer is outlined in his first reference in the article. Repeating it just clutters up the prose, IMO.

Likewise I don't think it's necessary to hold the reader's hand so much. I think it's sufficient to mention that retirement was not a common practice without saying he still traveled to London (which was covered in the previous section), and it is unnecessary to point out that he traveled both to and from London.

I agree we should probably mention the second-best bed bequest, but whether wives were entitled to a dower portion of the estate in Warwickshire at the time is still an open question, so I don't think we should speak so authoritively as if it were. Tom Reedy 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming here to discuss this, but don't ever hesitate to re-edit. It's a collaborative enterprise, and there are a thousand ways to cook a fish.


 * On Rowe: you are right—I didn't notice he was mentioned already (I tend to skip that traditions paragraph, for some reason).


 * "Prominent position" is referenced to Wells himself, using that word. It doesn't sound to me as if he is standing up, but I leave that judgement to you. Maybe "important" will do it. "North wall" doesn't tell us much in itself.


 * "To and from London" is from Ackroyd, where he is discussing Rowe's comments: "His seems to have been a kind of retirement or semi-retirement, if only because of the evident fact that he neither wrote nor collaborated in more drama. But he still travelled to and from London." Our text was challenging Rowe on the notion of retirement in the sense of giving up work but not in the sense of "retiring to the country". It's a shame we don't have something like Ackroyd's formula above, which encapsulates all possibilities, I think.


 * On the question of Anne inheriting a third, I found that detail in all the sources I checked apart from one which said "a half to a third" and one which said "a part" (I do refer to several sources before editing, I promise). I've added another ref now; but if you want to change it to "part", that might be the safest edit (I haven't come across any suggestion that Anne wasn't going to get anything, though there will always be a few scholars saying something different when it comes to Shakespeare).


 * If I could make a couple of suggestions for you to consider in turn:


 * I find the following over-detailed and a little tedious:


 * He sought to hold together the real property of the estate for a male heir, and so he entailed Susanna’s share to be handed down to her eldest male heir upon her death, or to the eldest male heir of her daughter in case she produced no sons, or, failing that, to the eldest male heir of Judith.


 * I didn't try to cut it down because my own books explain this slightly differently. But we need to ask whether the readers will be interested in more than a phrase or two anyway. If they are likely to be interested in any peripheral detail here, I expect it would be in the fact that Shakespeare changed the will after Quiney got a girl pregnant who then died.


 * I know you think we shouldn't hold the readers' hands too much, but I found the following a little dense: Shakespeare's 1605 purchase of a half-share in the Stratford tithes qualified him as a lay rector of the Holy Trinity Church, with the right to be buried inside the sanctuary.[69] He was buried in a prominent position in the chancel two days after his death.


 * I think I understand about tithes, but I had to look up "sanctuary" and "chancel" (which links to apse), and I confess I have no idea what a "lay rector" is. That's four tricky terms in a couple of lines. I have actually visited this church, but this started to make me feel as if I hadn't. I doubt the readers need much more than that he was important enough to be buried in the church, plus the monument stuff, and perhaps the epitaph.qp10qp 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sanctuary and chancel are pretty much interchangeable, though, strictly speaking, the sanctuary is the bit nearest the east end where only priests are allowed. It is quite wrong for chancel to redirect to apse, and it would be better if it was the other way round - see the apse talk page.  Some chancels have apses but many do not. I've never heard of lay rectors, either.  I agree that this section is too detailed. --GuillaumeTell 18:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

About the will: I don't know how much detail we should put in, beyond he left a large estate; I do tend to put in too much. IIRC evidently Shakespeare's will was challenged a couple of times, and the form in which it was written kept the property intact. Once by Judith and another time when one of Elizabeth's husband's tried to bequest the property in his will. In the first case, a settlement was made, and in the second the court recognized that the properties were entailed and they reverted back to Elizabeth to dispose of in her will. But again, I doubt if that is a point the reader would be interested in, and I think the Quiney episode that caused Shakespeare to change his will is a similar case that doesn't need to be in there.

I think we should probably cut the reference to his being a lay rector. I haven't found any reliable source for that, and Schoenbaum handles it with a "some say" qualification.

It also appears that the references have become mixed up. And speaking of references, is it really necessary to have two or three for each point? And to actually quote the source? I thought the references were going to be standardized. Quoting each one is not a common scholarly practice, AFAIK. Tom Reedy 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think Will's will was ever actually challenged as such. Judith's interest here was in the Chapel Lane cottage, and given Susanna took posession of it (was accepted as a tenant of Rowington Manor) in 1617, there is no reason to think she challenged it. Thomas Nash seems to have been under the misapprehension that he was entitled to dispose of it however he saw fit in his will, but there's no good reason to conclude that this was other than an honest mistake (he settled his own lands on Elizabeth). Edward Nash did file suit, but that was to challenge Susanna and Elizabeth's “settlement” to bar the entail (from Will's will). That case, as you say, seems to have been settled out of court, but it was challenging the second (of three) settlements on the grounds of Thomas Nash's will; not Will's will or entail as such. The entail in fact didn't succeed in keeping the estate intact: after Sir John Barnard's death Edward Bagely ended up with most of it, and it (IIRC) here ends up being split up and sold. Or, stricly speaking, Elizabeth split the estate when she bequeathed the Birthplace to the Harts, but…


 * On the references; for lack of a standard consensus reference format I'm using the most complete reference format available, which also happens to be my preferred form (but on that I'm sure most will have their own opinion). When we get to the point of discussing our way towards a consensus format we'll need to change whatever references aren't conforming. I double cite whenever possible to reduce the risk of propogating any given singular error; and I include a quote to make it easier to spot errors such as those that prompted me to make the relevant edit (the references were wrong and probably just copy/pasted without actually checking). Wikipedia is not a book or a journal article; there is no need for merciless (often borderline obtuse) brevity to save space to fit all the footnotes. --Xover 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All the will detail is all moot now, anyway, unless somebody reverts or puts in more detail.


 * On the references, I think it will be extremely tedious to go back and standardize them all to the long form you prefer. Unless that is a requirement for FAC, I don't see the point in multiplying opportunities for error creep, but I can live with whatever is decided. Tom Reedy 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Xover (if that's you, next but one above), there's a clear referencing system: citation and source information in "References", and substantive notes, paraphrases and quotes in "Notes". However, in the short term, your method is useful, because it explains your edits and sources. The problem isn't references being muddled up, it's old references that no longer reference what they once did. Clearly no one has been checking the refs, and I plead guilty to that in "Life" (in the lower sections, I have checked everything I could and re-reffed a great deal) for thinking I could just get away with light copyediting in this section, which has been so busy. Lesson learned: I now intend to check every ref and fact in "Life" and re-ref for refs I have no access to. Fortunately, there's so much on Shakespeare that this is possible. There are certainly some odd things in there and in the lead that I can't find in my books and which bug me.


 * On combining refs, we should have no more than one tag per sentence, I suggest, if we want the article to look professional and be easy to read. But that's down the line. Combining and doubling refs for info (a different point), as Xover says, is an insurance policy in two ways: it means we can be sure something is sourced even if we have no access to the source already reffed; and it means that we can indicate that information is fairly standard across several books. It needn't take up much space with abbreviated refs (Honan, 342; Greenblatt, 129; Schoenbaum, 300). None of us can possibly have all the books, so this method gives each of us more chance of checking a fact). I'm a formatting drone, so I don't mind going through and making everything consistent some time in the future.qp10qp 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I intend, time permitting, to volunteer to help out with standardizing refs and similar mechanical work when that time comes. I'm somewhat cautious about re-ref'ing because I don't have ready access to some current standard texts, and I don't want to end up replacing a ref to Honan (2000, readily available on Amazon) with the same to Chambers (1923, and very hard to find), say. --Xover 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to replace, just back up; then you will have confidence in the text yourself. Where I have replaced refs it is dodgy-sounding old ones; for example, today I replaced an old book called "Shakespeare Jubilee" with a ref to Ackroyd. I've got my sights on the Harrison Masterworks book now. Replacing facts is another thing, and I hold back from doing that: but there shouldn't really be rare facts in such a well-trodden field as this.qp10qp 21:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been working on the biography and have largely finished it (I hope), tonight I'll start checking cites from the top and work my way down. I have most of the books except for Ackroyd. Tom Reedy 21:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. I've got Ackroyd, so no problem there. I think we can be at FAC pretty soon.qp10qp 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just noting here, in case anyone is interested, that I've hurriedly thrown up an article on Chancel, to replace the ridiculous redirect to Apse. I'll do a bit more work on it tomorrow. It's amazing how many pages link to the new article! --GuillaumeTell 21:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good stuff: a wikipedia blind spot. It's one of those words that I assumed I knew, until I started to think about it.qp10qp 21:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Textual evidence?
I see some edits have been made using "textual evidence" as a basis. This is a very slippery slope that can be used to justify anything, and I for one don't believe it has any place in an encyclopedia article. I also see a "many scholars have concluded" statement with no corresponding cite or list of scholars. Tom Reedy 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I'll sort the Catholic stuff tomorrow.qp10qp 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at it again I see that "textual evidence" is the basis for all the entries in the speculation section, so it's probably not out of place in that section. It's all extremely slippery and slimey in that section anyway. Tom Reedy 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all sourced through good secondary sources. The new edits aren't. In fact, they place new info before old refs.qp10qp 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ha! I meant the three topics themselves; they're all based on not much more than speculation based on reading the works as biography. Tom Reedy 00:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since all of these sections are (extremely shortened) summaries of larger articles, wouldn't the phrase "textual evidence" be more a necessary part of WP:Summary style and less a "slippery and slimey" slope? If people want to know more about this evidence, clearly all they have to do is just click on the main article link, or do we want to make these sections larger in order to explain everything? (ick!) Wrad 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Once we start making them longer, we'll never stop. The key is to sum up the issues in as balanced a way as we can, and let the readers pursue these matters in the full articles. I've just adjusted the wording and refs to "Religion" to mention the textual approach specifically. For once, I'm on home ground, because I have studied the history of Catholicism, recusancy, etc., during this period. The reality is actually more complex than many people believe. As James Shapiro writes: "To argue that the Shakespeares were secretly Catholic or, alternately, mainstream Protestants, misses the point that except for a small minority at one extreme or another, those labels failed to capture the layered nature of what Elizabethans, from the Queen down, actually believed" (Shapiro, 2005: 167).qp10qp 08:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Sentences
Sorry to nitpick again. After a quick run-through of the first half, I found the following.

''After the birth of the twins, Shakespeare left few historical traces until he was mentioned as part of the London theatrical scene in 1592. As a result, the years between 1585 and 1592 are known as Shakespeare's “lost years”.'' Non sequitur ("As a result"). They could be called the "unknown years" instead.

John Aubrey reported that Shakespeare had been a country schoolmaster,[23] a tale augmented in the 20th century with the theory that his employer might have been Alexander Hoghton of Lancashire, a landowner who left money in his will to a certain "Shakeshafte". That is one very long noun-phrase ("a tale...").

Evidence from both textual and documentary sources indicates that Shakespeare tailored the roles in his plays to the individual members of the troupe. Vague. If the sources must be mentioned, at least give some indication of how they suggest Shakespeare adapted his roles to members of his troupe.

Rowe was the first biographer to pass down the tradition that Shakespeare retired to Stratford some years before his death,[56] but the practice of retiring was uncommon at that time,[57] and although Shakespeare wrote no plays after 1613, he did travel to and from London after then. Exhausting.


 * But they are called the "lost years," and have been for more than 100 years. I don't think a Wikipedia article is the place to try to begin a new tradition in Shakespeare scholarship. Or am I missing your point?
 * Yes. It does not follow from the previous sentence that the period should be called the "lost years", as implied by "As a result". We had a similar problem with a couple of sentences in the introduction: "Little is known about Shakespeare life. As a result, people have speculated..." or something like that
 * It works; I don't understand your objection, if any. I personally think we should cut the whole Hoghton reference; it's been discredited for years now. (But my objection is on content, not form.)
 * That would work for both of us.
 * We could go into a lot more detail on every sentence in this article, and I don't know if the biography section would be the place for an example on this. The sentence is tightly referenced. How does everybody else feel?
 * It's unsatisfying with "sources indicate..." introduced but not explained; the "sources..." should either be cut or the "indicate" expanded. But I am happy to hear what others have to say.
 * I don't agree that the sentence is exhausting. It is carefully constructed with one clause leading logically into the next, so it is easy enough to follow. I think reading a barrage of simple sentences is more exhausting than reading a variety of them. Again, how does everybody else feel?
 * It's still tiring. I am not suggesting a barrage of simple sentences, but an alternative.
 * I think we could go over every section and find all kinds of alternate possibilities that may be preferred one day, but then out of favor the next. We're getting to the point where the edits consisit of personal preferences -- adding a "however" or moving around a clause -- without making much difference to the content. IMO the article is much improved from the way it was a month ago. I suggest we clean it up, regularize the refs, and submit it. I think our perspectives are becoming skewed and we need a judgment from somebody who hasn't looked at the article every day. Tom Reedy 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funeral monument
Ivdicio Pylivm, genio Socratem, arte Maronem: Terra tegit, popvlvs mæret, Olympvs habet.

This is my attempt at translation:

Him the earth buries, the people mourn, and Olympus embraces: a Pylius in judgement, a Socrates in genius, a Virgil in art.


 * How about replacing it with a picture of the plaque with the poem? I've got one around here somewhere. Tom Reedy 17:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (From http://shakespeareauthorship.com/eulogies.html) In judgement a Nestor, in wit a Socrates, in art a Virgil; the earth buries [him], the people mourn [him], Olympus possesses [him]. I think a caption should contain the translation, whatever we use above it. RedRabbit 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather cut it, because it's not really important. It's a very recent addition. The epitaph is more interesting, if anything really is required. Probably not in both cases, in my opinion.qp10qp 17:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. RedRabbit 18:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was just an opinion, though. May I say that your Latin is coming along rather well, Rabbit. I've forgotten most of mine, I fear—which is infuriating, given the large proportion of my education spent having it drummed into me.qp10qp 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Latin was drilled into my father too, but all he seems to remember nowadays is the dog Latin "bene audax"—used during cricket games. Needless to say, I've received no help from him. RedRabbit 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the transcription of the Latin epitaph because the text refers to the tablet and the latin text. If someone can come up with a good (legible, readable) picture of the epitaph (preferably in full) I think that would be much better. And I do think we should have a picture of the tablet here, or, failing to find a good one, a transcription. A translation of the latin is overkill, I think, given we give the gist of it in the main body text. --Xover 19:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got an image, but it's small and I don't know where I got it from. Tonight I'll scan a jpg from my Halliwell-Phillips. Tom Reedy 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Xover, true. I didn't read over the section first. RedRabbit 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the inscription, at the request of Tom Reedy, and I have placed it at the top of this talk page section. Someone will need to copy that line to the place you want it to appear in the article. AndyJones 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lost Years - Houghton Connection
Editors have more than once referred to the Hoghton connection as having been discredited for years and deleted contributions on that basis. The assertion is both too facile and erroneous. There is certainly no (universal) conclusion that Shakespeare was Shakeshafte, but neither has the proposition been discredited. Attempts to do so have been made, notably by Robert Bearman in "'Was William Shakespeare William Shakeshafte' Revisited," Shakespeare Quarterly 53 (2002). His work, while persuasive, is not compelling, and it has its own problems. He maintains that Shakespeare's potential length of service with Houghton could not have been long enough to warrant the bequest that Shakeshafte received. While this makes some sense, it is not conclusive; there are numerous reasons, especially if the bequest was to an incognito recusant, why it might be disproportionate. Richard Wilson rebutted Bearman in the next volume of SQ. The recent work of Thomas McCoog and Peter Davidson in the Times Literary Supplement of 16 March 2007 is no more conclusive. In fact it is sloppy in a few areas and makes some tenuous conclusions. Just to name a few, Richard Wilson, Peter Milward, Michael Wood, Eamon Duffy and Ernst Honigmann all maintain the Houghton connection. As recently as March 29, 2007, Anne Barton, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and author of Essays, Mainly Shakespearean, reviewing Rosenbaum's Shakespeare Wars in the New York Review of Books notes that Rosenbaum is "inconclusive" about whether the bard is the Shakeshafte of Lancashire, and she herself refers to the matter as "still unresolved". She certainly was aware of Bearman's work and presumably aware of McCoog's, published two weeks earlier. David Aaron Murray professor of literature at Maryville University in St. Louis, writing years after Bearman’s work, writes that the connection is "accepted wisdom". Accepted wisdom or not, the proponents make (even in spite of the criticisms) a convincing case. It is the predominent explanation for his whereabouts in the lost years. The other speculations about the lost years have vastly less circumstantial evidence to support them and are much less believable. It would seem to me, in light of this, that the Houghton connection is given unduly short shrift in this article. I would propose that an editor expand, at least by a couple of sentances, the entry in this regard. If necessary, I can do so. I would hope we can get a consensus on this. There are other much more speculative matters which have substantial coverage in the article. Your thoughts, please. Mamalujo 19:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The refutation is as persuasive as the original case, and I believe even more so. Honigmann's case, I daresay, has never been accepted by even a majority of scholars, much less universally, given the number of Shakeshafts in the area. And which speculative matters are substantially covered in the article? Tom Reedy 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A brief sentence wouldn't kill us, so long as we don't try to explain the issue. Something like: "One theory is that he worked as a schoolmaster for the Catholic Hoghton family of Lancashire". The moment we start to go beyond that, it will run away with us (this was a Lancashire name, not a Warwickshire name; Cottam, Shakespeare's possible schoolteacher, was related to friends of Hoghton; why would Shakespeare be left money in a will in 1581 at such a young age? If Shakeshafte was a player, how could he have been a resident schoolmaster? We know Shakespeare was in Stratford in 1582, because he married Anne then, etc.), as will virtually any academic controversy about Shakespeare, of which there are thousands.qp10qp 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what we have is sufficient, then. Tom Reedy 21:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the coverage the matter is given really is sufficient, and I don't think an adequate argument has been made that it is. A growing number of prominent Shakespeare scholars give great credence to the Lancashire connection, some find the circumstantial evidence enough to consider the matter proven. I also forgot to mention, Stephen Greenblatt also advances the idea and is among those who consider it probable. Tom Reedy may find the refutation more compelling than the case for Lancashire - personally I'd give Greenblatt more weight than any editor's opinion (my own included)...the point being many top scholars are behind this. User:Qp10qp notes that Shakeshaft is a Lancashire name. True, but the author's grandfather Richard had in fact used the name. And names were much more fluid at the time than they are now. For example, in contemporary records Christopher Marlowe also bears the appelations Marley, Morley and Marlin. To answer Qp10qp's question how Shakeshafte could have been a schoolmaster and player, the answer is simple - both jobs were in house. The Hoghtons, being Catholic, required an in house teacher. Unlike in Lancashire, a Catholic stronghold where Shakespeare's teachers, Cottom, Hunt and the like were Catholics and even future Jesuits, the Hoghtons had to take great care in the education of their children. Houghton's players were also in house. Milward maintains there is a "convergence of probabilities" regarding Lancashire that approach a certitude. David Beauregard editor and contributor to "Shakespeare and the Culture of Christianity in Early Modern England" (a collection of sixteen essays from Catholic, Protestant and secular perspectives) says there is “growing consensus that Shakespeare was a Roman Catholic". A point which supports the Lancashire connection.  Tom asks which speculations are given a lot of play in the article - the authorship question (a nutter's paradise) and his sexuality.  Neither of these are given a fraction of the credence by prominent scholars that the Lancashire connection is.  Clearly it is given inadequate weight.  Mamalujo 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been harboring an opinion that it might be right for us to combine the Speculations section into the biography part after all. At first I was a bit wary, because I knew it may cause arguments, but it seems more and more to me to be the only way to include the information without giving it undue weight. Wrad 02:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Stephen Greenblatt is not the most reliable biographer, and he has been criticized for his flights of fancy presented as undisputed truth. If you think the Hoghton theory -- and that's all it is, a theory -- is supported by a majority of scholars, you should be able to list them. If you choose to do so, I'll list the scholars who are skeptics, and without even checking, I'm willing to bet my number will be larger than yours.
 * As far as the amount of space given to the speculative "Lancashire connection", it is more space than is given to the evidence for Shakespeare's hand in the Booke of Sir Thomas More, more space than is given to the enclosure controversy, more space than is given to Shakespeare's money lending and court suits, and more space than is given to Shakespeare's writing an impresa for the Earl of Rutland, all of which have much, much more evidentiary support than the Hoghton theory. This article cannot be an exhaustive treatement of every aspect of Shakespeare's life, especially when that aspect has its own article.
 * It is demonstrably false to say or imply that Shakespeare's religion is given less coverage than authorship or sexuality. Under "Speculation about Shakespeare", authorship is given 56 words; religion, which is entirely about the possibility of him being Catholic, is given 151 words; and his sexuality is given 110. In addition, each topic has its own article, which this article points to. While I would not be surprised it Shakespeare was a Catholic, the fact is that it is speculation and not supported by any demonstrable evidence, and in fact all the evidence we do have goes the other way.
 * The speculations are in a separate section because they are just that -- speculations, not biography. What keeps it from being given undue weight is the title of the section -- "Speculation about Shakespeare." I believe all this has been hashed out some time ago. Reopening this can of worms at this late date will only delay the article being awarded FA status. Tom Reedy 04:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mamalujo, you misunderstand me. I wasn't questioning the point (the fact is, we don't know) but suggesting that, as your replies and Tom's prove, any more than a brief mention of this would necessitate a raft of explanation, with both schools of thought being summed up. We haven't room for that here. But Wikipedia is huge and has the space for this to be addressed in full detail somewhere else.


 * In my opinion, the present sentence is the right length for the purposes of this article: "John Aubrey reported that Shakespeare had been a country schoolmaster,[23] a tale augmented in the 20th century with the theory that his employer might have been Alexander Hoghton of Lancashire, a landowner who left money in his will to a certain 'Shakeshafte'." This is concise and proportionate to the way similar matters are covered. But if you'd like to propose a different wording, please do so, and lets discuss it.qp10qp 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, here's an interesting artcle from Honigmann himself on Shakespeare's purported Catholocism and the problems with the evidence for it: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/nec/honigmann121.htm. Tom Reedy 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's interesting. The critique of that book could be applied to so many wirtings about Shakespeare, in particular the faults of failing to "write for the opposition" and of making an assumption and then treating it as fact. The best scholars never do that, even when they embark on an original line of thought. The book sounds rather like Shadowplay by Clare Asquith, which is execrable. I agree with Honigmann that we shouldn't rule out that Shakespeare might have been brought up as a Catholic; however, the idea that he wove Catholic codes into his plays seems to me unlikely: he strikes me as far too much of a genius to limit himself like that.qp10qp 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Trying to read her was like chewing tin foil. I don't see how she got published. Tom Reedy 21:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Last review issues
In the last FA review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/William_Shakespeare, the reviewer Awadewit objects to using encyclopedias to source the lead sentence and says that statements in the lead graf needed to bee cited. Is that still true or has there been some other understanding since then? Tom Reedy 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will change the encyclopedia ones.qp10qp 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements in the lead need to be cited if they say something that appears to be different from what is in the main body or is likely to be challenged. The "he is the greatest" stuff needs refs because it is likely to be challenged; same with the "void" bit and the sexuality/authorship stuff. So those have cites. I went through the lead the other day and made sure that it otherwise largely summarises what is cited later in the article. Therefore, I am confident that the lead fits the criteria. If I am wrong, no matter, because as soon as someone asks for anything in the lead to be cited, we can just duplicate-ref it to the cite in the main body, and job done. I'm not in favour of too many cites in the lead, because I prefer readers to have a smooth ride into the main article. I should add that there is an awful lot of balderdash talked about the lead, but in fact the principles are the same there as for the rest of the article: namely that information should be cited where appropriate (in other words, where controversial, likely to be challenged, and for quotes, etc.). qp10qp 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
Just to explain the thinking behind the paintings which I added today:

The article has always struck me as visually drab, and when I was working on the "Critical reputation" section, it struck me that the obsession of the Romantics and the Victorians with Shakespeare could be gorgeously illustrated with art from those periods. I didn't just choose any old paintings but selected a thematic group, with work by Fuseli—who was Shakespeare mad—Blake, and the Pre-Raphaelites, and matched the paintings to specific points in the text. I also picked paintings with a vertical or squarish format, because wide paintings, I think, interrupt the text too much (which is why I added only a detail from the awkwardly shaped Millais Ophelia). I've tried to create a rhythm down the page, syncopating the images with the quote boxes.

I have gone through the page and made sure that all images are thumbs, with no pixel value added. This is important, because FAC reviewers often object if the pictures have pixel values. Although I admit that it is disappointing if we cannot tweak picture sizes to make the most perfect aesthetic effect on our screens, the point is that when images are in standard thumb sizes, they adjust to users' individual preferences. This mechanism is little understood, because many people assume that an article will look the same on other screens as on their own. If we add pixel sizes, however, many readers will find images jostling about all over the place and be subject to dreary download speeds: this puts them off the article and can provoke instant dismissal from reviewers who experience such infuriation.qp10qp 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a thought: has anyone thought about using jpgs of facsimile text from the FF or sonnets instead of textboxes? Tom Reedy 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, having just come from William Blake's 250th anniverary conference, I'm glad to see Billy represented, but I don't think it's one of his better pics (Hogarth's Garrick as Richard III is a more intriguing version of the scene). I'd suggest Blake's Pity, which is unusual - perhaps unique - because it does not represent a scene in Shakespeare, but a simile (or rather two similes) in Macbeth ('pity like a naked newborn babe, or heaven's cherubim horsed upon the sightless couriers of the air'). Paul B 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I love looking at Blake, especially in those darkened rooms at the Tate, with the illuminated pages!


 * I did have a careful look at many possibilities. I liked the idea that the picture shapes make a larger design together. Neither of those Blakes are his best works, but they have gradually grown on me (had them in sandbox for a while). In particular, I like the turquoise colour, which really lifts the page, I think. I have looked at that Hogarth, but though I like Hogarth, I find it a bit dull. However, I am intending to add a few sentences about Garrick and co, and so it might go well there. Fuseli represents Garrick in a way, because his obsession with Shakespeare was fired by watching Garrick while young. What I love about Blake and Fuseli is that they are so unliteral about Shakespeare, which is really quite unusual. By all means chip in, now that we have an art department. qp10qp 23:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pity looks good. I see you just uploaded it. It might be a bit obscure. Could you add a reffed explanation to the image summary? It would go nicely in the "Style" section. What would be your suggested caption? qp10qp 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bindman's Blake as an Artist has a detailed discusion, as does Martin Butlin's book. I'd note that it represents Blake's own idiosyncratic view of pity, but mostly emphasise that it combines the two similies from Macbeth describing the likely response of the Scottish people to the news of the murder of Malcolm's family Duncan. Paul B 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks very handsome in situ. I've moved it down slightly to go next to the quote in the text. It now perfectly illustrates the most difficult section of the article to illustrate! It will need a cite, though.qp10qp 09:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it usual to cite images? Where does one cite? If so you could cite my recent book on Millais for the Ophelia (pp.33-9)! However, for Blake Bindman is still unsurpassed. Bindman, David, Blake as an Artist,  Phaidon, 1977, p.106. Paul B 10:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks; I've added the info to the image page. From the article's point of view, it's not the image that needs the cite but the point that it represents those similes. Actually, though, I do think the source of an image should be given on the image page, and any commentary there cited (and I wish uploaders would put useful commentary in the summaries; I had to research the source of the Fuseli Hamlet myself, for example, because the summary wasn't informative enough—though I don't know how to edit that image page). I did the Claudio and Isabella summary myself and tried to make everything clear.


 * Congratulations on your book, by the way. And thanks for helping Wikipedia.qp10qp 13:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I might even get your book, now that I've had a look at that page. I love early Millais, particularly those scratchy drawings. (But my real passion is Samuel Palmer: when I am depressed, I go to the Ashmoleum and ask to see a few of his drawings. They have a weirdly restorative spiritual effect on me.)qp10qp 13:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about using Image:Miranda - The Tempest JWW.jpg? It does show some poor fraunting souls getting their ship all dashed to pieces in the background, but it is less oppressive than Fuseli who currently gets two outings, and everybody always goes for Millas' Ophelia when picking a PR image of Shakespeare, so it would be nice for Waterhouse to get an airing (I'm still smarting on Hogarth's behalf from the reference to him as dull!) Yomangani talk 06:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Text boxes

 * I find these textboxes ugly. I don't really know how they work.qp10qp 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not too fond of the text boxes either. Good images of an original source — the First Folio is quite “photogenic” :-) — would be better, at least to my tastes.--Xover 21:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I love textboxes. I think they are very attractive and professional looking. A well-placed quote can lead the reader to read further. Is there any particular one that you need changed or adjusted. Wrad 20:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got a feeling they look different on different screens. Wrad, I find the "As You Like It" box too narrow. Do you know how to make it wide enough for each line not to be cut up?


 * Tom has sent me a couple of Folio jpgs, which I'll post here when I've uploaded them. They look nice but are wider than they are deep.qp10qp 22:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deepest, Richest, Greatest
Hmm. I think you're right Andy (cf. page history). Still, the sentence “Many critics believe that Shakespeare achieved his deepest portrayals of human beings and his richest poetry in his greatest tragedies.” feels very heavy-handed to me. There's one superlative too many in there. Would it work to replace “his greatest” with “these”, perhaps? Other suggestions? --Xover 14:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's very difficult this. But it's work in progress, and I daresay the general critical stuff will get slapped about at FA. I'll try again.qp10qp 14:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I've found a simple solution.qp10qp 14:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, excellent. That's much better. Thanks Qp10qp! (And thanks for catching and fixing my mistake Andy!). --Xover 14:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

funeral monument picture
Is there any way we could crop this image and have the figure of Shakespeare seems less far off in this picture? I think it would be a good change. Wrad 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. It's taller than I thought and unfortunately the picture now runs beyond its own paragraph. It could be done again, keeping more to the proportions of the original. Views? Tried it again, keeping more to the proportions of the original, but it didn't really work. --Old Moonraker 06:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Line refs
I intended to line-ref the few Shakespeare quotes, but I'm scratching my head. The "Richard III and the ghosts" scene is V iii in my old Hodek Complete but V v in my Oxford. We haven't yet decided what edition to line-ref to, as far as I know. Most recent books do seem to line-ref the Oxford—the trouble is, it's so jolly eccentric. I think that if I leave out the Richard ref (it's V iii on the picture's summary page, so it's covered on the quiet), Oxford is probably the best choice. Any thoughts? (The template on the Wikiproject page doesn't work, unfortunately—at least for me.)

Plunge time
I can't think of much else to do now, though no doubt the FA reviewers will come up with plenty. So lets take the plunge.

I hope editors who have worked on the page will sign up to the nom. I'm game to do any dog work necessary (no doubt there will be the usual calls for a copyedit and better prose; I will continue trying to point the prose, anyway); but it would be impressive if there was a group of us responding. Speaking for myself, I'm not prepared to make radical changes in the heat of the review, such as a complete reorganisation of headings and structure or a change to a different referencing style. If we are going to fail over things like that, I'd rather take the necessary time for the work after the FA than rush things and plough up the hundreds of little balances that hold the article together at the moment (I've never been happy about having a "Speculations" section, for example, but folding it into the biography would take time and care, and I wouldn't like to attempt that during FAC). Sometimes nominators have to say: "Well, that is another way of doing it, but we feel the article can pass in its present form.." If we fail, so be it: all that glisters is not gold.

I suggest we should avoid emotional arguments with reviewers, if possible, and stick to polite disagreement should there be a problem. A concession or two never does any harm, so long as we don't do anything to the detriment of the article: goodwill is important in encouraging reviewers to return and reasssess. But I believe we should hold reviewers to the criteria, just as they will us. In my opinion, it's not about earning supports by pleasing reviewers but about reaching the standard set by the criteria. If we reach that (and I believe we already do), Raul will ignore irrelevant comments and objections; on the other hand, no matter how many supports we have, the article will not pass if we don't answer valid objections.

Having said all that, there's been a dire shortage of reviewers at FAC recently, so maybe few people will be interested in commenting. I hope that's not the case, because every article benefits from fresh eyes and a rigorous critique.qp10qp 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this time it will pass. The prose and citations are infinitely better than last time. RedRabbit 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link
Hi, I'd like to ask for a chance to add an external link to the article about William Shakespeare. It is a link to a scholarly site (it is part of the students' society of William Shakespeare in the Czech Republic) which deals with portraiture of the Elizabethan period and specifically with portraits of Shakespeare. The link is: http://gallery.cmssws.cz/ and the project is called Shakespeare and the Elizabethans Imagined. Thank you so much for considering this issue. Janushka p 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We are keeping the external links to a minimum, I'm afraid. But thanks for asking. Try an article like Chandos portrait.qp10qp 18:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Slowing/winding
Re RR's point at FAC:

We might find a better wording than "slowing down", but I agree with Awadewit's point about "winding down". Maybe we should just be more literal: "acting less", for example.qp10qp 18:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe "acted in fewer plays", "his acting career was approaching retirement", "he was near retirement", or such-like? RedRabbit 19:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the sentence only refers to his acting career. Here's what the reference actually says: "The fact that his name does not occur in the actor list for Jonson's Volpone in 1605 may indicate that his acting career had come to an end by then."
 * However, as we know the FF states he was an actor in all his plays, which is why we qualify it with "is taken by some scholars." IIRC originally I had a "however" between the two sentences to further qualify the statement, but it has been removed, apparently in an (ill-advised, IMO) effort to simplify the prose. Tom Reedy 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the source says "came to an end", I say we borrow its phrase. RedRabbit 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check it out. I probably want editing, since I tweaked it further and it may be too much. Tom Reedy 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The comma splice before "however" is ungrammatical; the rest is fine. RedRabbit 19:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold, my man, be bold! Tom Reedy 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Better still, maybe the point has to go altogether. If we reintroduce "however", we can say simply: "The 1616 edition of Ben Jonson's Works names him on the cast lists for Every Man in His Humour (1598) and Sejanus, His Fall (1603). However, his name is absent from the 1605 cast list for Jonson’s Volpone." That would kill a number of birds with one stone (inaccuracy/word choice/speculation/variation from source).qp10qp
 * In that case I would just leave out the Volpone reference altogether. The point of the passage is to state the opinion of some scholars and its basis, and whether his name is on the Volpone cast list is really immaterial to his name on the FF cast list. Tom Reedy 19:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the comma splice, but left the rest intact. I'm gonna back off a bit, cos I think we're poring over tree bark now without much feedback from the forest rangers in the tower and may be causing problems for ourselves. Tom Reedy 20:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. At the micro-level, we will always have slightly different tastes. The article is in excellent shape overall and looks set to pass FA. So maybe we should leave it largely alone except in response to review points.qp10qp 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Check. While we're at it -- or not at it, rather, can someone tell me what this barn star thing is?Tom Reedy 21:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there are no rewards for what we do on Wikipedia, it is a form of unofficial recognition. To get a Barnstar from Awadewit is special, I think, because she has very high standards, as you saw from her review. Most people keep barnstars on their userpage or usersubpages. (A few people think barnstars are silly; but not me.) qp10qp 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Query
His characters become more complex and tender as he switches deftly between comic and serious scenes, prose and poetry, and achieves the narrative variety of his mature work.

Can we use a more descriptive word than "tender"? [This was RedRabbit]


 * I'd just leave out "and tender". --GuillaumeTell 08:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can leave it out or whatever. But tender is not subsumed within "complex". Some of the recent edits change words that are in the sources I have used. If you have seen Henry IV, pts I and 2, will know that "tender" is the mot juste for a certain new aspect of Shakespeare's characterisation at that time.qp10qp 09:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read part 1 (part 2 is sitting in my bookshelf). Ok. RedRabbit 10:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This may be unorthodox, but I believe they are his greatest work.qp10qp 13:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Clarity
Perhaps for clarity's sake this sentence: Two plays not included in the First Folio, Pericles, Prince of Tyre, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, are now accepted as part of the canon, with scholars agreed that Shakespeare made a major contribution to their composition.

Should be altered to read as follows: Two plays not included in the First Folio, The Two Noble Kinsmen, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre, are now accepted as part of the canon, with scholars agreed that Shakespeare made a major contribution to their composition.

This reinforces that there are two plays instead of there appearing to be a discrepency between the "Two plays" and the inline comma used, especially to an individual unfamiliar with the complete body of Shakespeare's work. I know this is a nit-picky (and optional) detail, however I would have corrected it myself if the article had not been protected. 74.138.112.181 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. RedRabbit 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The Greatest Writer?
My issue is with this passage William Shakespeare (baptised 26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616)[a] was an English poet and playwright now generally regarded as the greatest writer of the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. (italics mine

I'm not sure anyone may fairly say that Shakespeare is 'generally regarded as the greatest writer of the English language.' I'm sorry, but such superlatives, especially something so subjective as the 'greatest writer of the english language,' have no place in an encyclopedic article. Perhaps more scholars would name Shakespeare the greatest writer in English language literature than they would any other author (I probably would, if forced to pick, though I am not really a scholar), but he would have a plurality, not a majority, and certainly not near unanimity. 'Among the greatest writers of the english language,' 'one of the greatest writers of the english language,' or even replacing, 'generally regarded' with 'considered by many' would be much more acceptable. For the same reason I take issue with 'pre-eminent dramatist,' though I grant you would find less debate on that matter than on the former. Mrhyperbole 23:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has occurred before on this talk page. The overwhelming critical assessment of Shakespeare is that he is "generally regarded as the greatest writer of the English language" and the "world's pre-eminent dramatist." If that is the assessment of most scholars and critics (which it is), then to not have that in the article is POV. Likewise, you say such language has no place in an encyclopedic article. Similar language is in Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book, and other major encyclopedias. --Alabamaboy 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was disappointed that my "often " was changed to "generally" at some point, because this type of objection, however dismissable, is going to keep coming.


 * But "generally" is anyway an ambiguous word, because it can mean both "universally" and "in most cases". I presume that since Awadewit agreed to it in her review, it is intended to mean the latter. Mrhyperbole's point that this statement has no place in an encycopedia, however, is mistaken: I checked a whole series of English-language encyclopedias, and they all have something like it. Even so, I think "often" would forestall this type of criticism, whereas "generally" won't.qp10qp 14:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Change it to whatever you think best. RedRabbit 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since we're already promoted, I vote for leaving it. Awadewit said she thought it was an improvement, and we're never going to please everyone. I just like the sound of it better. "Often" implies to me that a person thinks about it several times a day or a week. Tom Reedy 17:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't "now generally" sound clunky? And "generally" is so ..well... general. Kind of an ugly word. It's seems that "widely" would be better, which is what someone suggested ages ago. I forget who or when. Also - doesn't "a few other poems" sound less than impressive? Since the article is now promoted, I guess we don't need to worry about these little things mucking up the process, yes? Smatprt 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should just leave it. No doubt drivebys will get at it soon, but we can argue that this wording was there when the article passed FA.qp10qp 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FA?
If this a FA, why hasn't the FAC page been updated to reflect this? Raul hasn't closed the discussion. I think there has been some kind of mistake. RedRabbit 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the star, pending the decision on the FAC page. RedRabbit 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, my mistake. RedRabbit 16:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. We got promoted, in the same edit as The Simpsons! AndyJones 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoorah! Drinks all around, me hearties! Tom Reedy 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yipee! What an accomplishment! Wrad 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)