User talk:RedRabbit1983/Sept 2007

Shakespeare project collaboration
The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Great work
Great work on your responses to the issues raised at the FA poll. I don't know if you saw it, but I name-checked you in the very first draft of the FA to-do list, which can be seen here! AndyJones 07:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andy. RedRabbit1983 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shaky
Well, you too. But I'm daunted by the article as a whole, I must admit. I think the lead and the biography are only a couple of light copy edits away from featured standard, but the rest seems to me a quagmire. I've just read the article through for the third time, and I fear that it is still way short of good prose or a fine comprehension of the issues. It's dismaying because the editors are very decent people and have done a colossal job getting such a tricky article this far, and I so want this to be an FA. But unless the FA candidacy lucks out with the reviewers, I just can't see it happening. I've been wrong before, though.qp10qp 12:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit
Agree: Chronology is a huge problem: I have a few ideas and will attack it in the next few minutes. AndyJones 16:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Has that helped? I thought it was too disjointed: it needed to explain what it was getting at before it got at it (so to speak). Sorry to note I overwrote some of your good work. Feel free to edit me further. AndyJones 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fear the opening sentences of "style" might be unfixable. Do you think anyone would cry if I just removed them and tried again with something else? AndyJones 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Forget I spoke. User:qp10qp has done this. AndyJones 22:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Influence on theatre, literature, and language" reads well now, for my money. End of "style" still needs work. AndyJones 12:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can on this page for now, I think, so I'll leave things for a few hours. Among the issues that really bother me:
 * this edit rankles with me. Since I've read it, getting FA status doesn't seem to be enough unless we get Qp10qp's support for it! Also, it seems to me we're unlikely to get FA unless Qp10qp and Awadewit come on board.
 * Qp10qp has been very helpful. I hope Awadewit supports the article, too. It appears now we have a section of FA standard!
 * Alabamaboy isn't supporting FA at the moment. I expect he'll come round, though, once the Authorship issue is resolved. He still seems to be working hard on it.
 * He's come round. It's nice to have his support.
 * I think Authorship is a terribly minor issue and I'm very sad that we've all got bogged down in it.
 * So do I. The section has three sentences, for God's sake!
 * I think the genunine big question is: are there now sections of the article that don't look professional? If yes, I'm still prepared to attack them.
 * Almost all the footnotes now look good to me, and I can't see a fix for anything else that looks problematic. Do you think that issue is mostly resolved? AndyJones 12:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so, but don't know. The issue of footnotes has bored me. RedRabbit1983 17:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sweet dreams! Stay off the Chardonnay. AndyJones 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Authorship
It is settled. The paragraph is of FA standard. It's just a matter of keeping it that way. See my comments on talk there.qp10qp 17:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with Ben. Raul has seen threads much longer than this: sooner or later a consensus starts to form. I say leave this nomination running for a couple more weeks, unless Raul closes it earlier. Very few people have reviewed the article so far, and the more that arrive to do so, the more the editors will learn; and also, I don't think the old comments should be vaporised by a new start.


 * But to be honest, I'm not following the FAC any more. Since I've been editing the article, a conflict of interest means that I can't vote: so I feel like I'm one of the article's editors now, and I want to see the article improve, whether it reaches FA status this time or not.


 * By the way, would I be right in guessing that you are a certain person who used to discuss English usage with me under a different name? qp10qp 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's all right, I won't tell anyone. And I've never noticed any peevishness.


 * As for a list of bits needing copyediting, I think the structure of each section and paragraph needs overhauling, so it would be misleading to give a list. I don't agree with the editors who say that the references are OK now: I dislodged a couple of stinkers yesterday and there are plenty more. So what I'm going to do is change the occasional reference for a better one and then copyedit around it. I did that with a little paragraph on language last night, and it took me about an hour and a half, so at this speed I could get through the article in about six months. I don't think there's a quick fix; but my views are probably not typical since I'm very fussy. This is a good article to care about, though. qp10qp 11:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, don't do that. I'm not going to contribute much more than a dabble or two each evening. The article needs you because you understand about the language.


 * Identification? How many good Australian copyeditors are there? I can only think of Tony. And you three. qp10qp 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

William
I haven't looked for a while. I'm going to do a little reference weeding there later. I don't think I'm a very good person to ask, since I'm so severe. I'm fed up with listening to myself nitpick, to be honest.qp10qp 07:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Feel free to delete the following if you deem it justified, as I did on my talk page.

The only relevant part that I found in your essay was this : "It then follows that there are degrees of relevance. So, if there are degrees of relevance, and if we are to prefer relevant names, we should at least try to remove those who are irrelevant. Tell me, is this argument totally invalid?"

No, it is not totally invalid, and if there was a way to accurately assess the degrees of relevance, I would support restraining the criterion as you seek. Right now, it is done through discussion on the talk page since the criterion cannot be any less loose than it is without threatening to cut actual or future relevant names.

You seem to have a huge problem with George V. Chilingar. I suggest you take a look at his page so you can better assess if he is, as you think, a mere engineer, or rather a knowledgeable geologist who teaches engineering. Sorry to say, but your theories about possible conflicts of interest because he works in the petroleum industry emanates nothing but ad hominem.

So, yes, the criterion, basically, allows for a cosmologist to make the list. But none has made it so far and that should tell you that the process seems to work while it can hardly be improved without costs being higher than the expected benefits. Unless you can propose what I have asked from you since the beginning. --Childhood&#39;s End 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I said I was finished dealing with you. Your arguments aren't getting any more rational. I pointed out a clumsy appeal to authority and other errors. Remember: He is the bestest scientist in the whole world, and you dare to dispute him!
 * You have every right to dispute what a highly regarded scientist such as Reiter says. But I do have a problem with some WP editor claiming that he demonstrated him to be wrong. Another instance where, yet again, you refused to acknowledge your slip. You obviously have no idea if the IPCC's list of reviewers is overall any more qualified than the list of scientists in disagreement, and that's all you had to concede.
 * I have an exercise for you. Define an appeal to authority and state why it is a form of logical fallacy. Now, if you can do that, you will see why it is irrelevant whether this man agrees with you on a certain point or not. My dispute is specifically with you, not with your eminent authority (nice red herring, by the way). It is incidental whether I agree or disagree with your special man. This is why bringing it up amounts to a red herring.


 * The IPCC's reviewers, as far as I have seen, have more relevant qualifications than some of the people on the list. Your silly criterion opens a back door to outsiders who lack requisite qualifications. But you sympathise with the people on the list, not because they all so eminently qualified (in the relevant fields), but because they don't express a distasteful opinion, like the opinion of the IPCC's reviewers.


 * By the way, there is another strawman in your argument. I said that I argued at length in the archives, not that I had demonstrated everything conclusively to you (or the man I have never spoken to). It is probably next to impossible to demonstrate anything to you contrary to your rabid ideology. Demonstration and argument are different.


 * You said there is no way to assess degrees of relevance, yet we would both agree a nutritionist is less relevant than a meteorologist. So it follows there is at least some distinction. The process doesn't work because many of the scientists have nothing to do with the fields they criticise. You made a false assertion.
 * As you said, we would both agree. We would, using this talk page and our own subjective opinion, not an undefinable revised criterion.
 * "Subjective opinion" is a tautology. You are carelessly using language for silly word-play. Your statement is about as ill considered as: "well, what you are stating is an opinion, and only that!" You see, with hotheaded opponents, you have to first get them to concede certain points before you can advance an argument. It took me a long time to get you to even concede that the criterion allows irrelevant names and that relevance does indeed exist.


 * It's funny you bring up ad hominem in relation to conflict of interest. How could an assertion of conflict of interest be anything but to the man (as the Latin says)? In fact that is the matter of discussion, isn't it - someone's eligibility? You see, the petroleum industry is generally in conflict with the idea of curbing emissions. I don't need to explain what a conflict of interest is and how it could impair someone's judgement, do I? You have a very silly comprehension of logic.
 * The fact that Chilingar may appear to be in a conflict of interest shows in no way that what he says is wrong or that he should not be eligible. That is textbook ad hominem (it's the oldest story in the business - if you disagree with global warming, that must be because you work for the oil industry and certainly not because you may have a good point).
 * Yes, that's exactly it! I believe that because you disagree with global warming, you are working for the oil industry. Therefore, whatever argument you put forward must be wrong. I believe the same thing about your hero, too. I am exactly this kind of clown you have invented for me. Well done in foiling me!


 * Ok, seriously. For your convenience I have formatted your strawmans in bold. I do not agree with this position: that because your hero has some possible connection to the petroleum industry his argument must necessarily be wrong. You just made that up.


 * As for conflict of interest, you have a shallow understanding, so it might take some time to explain it to you (I hope I succeed the first time round). Now, either your hero's involvement in the petroleum industry sympathetically disposes him to the petroleum industry or it does not. The former case is what we call a conflict of interest. Now, if there is a conflict of interest, he is likely to come to a conclusion not based purely on objective evidence but influenced instead by a conflict of interest. That is why, for instance, we don't say a nutritionist receiving millions of dollars from McDonalds should be trusted for an objective opinion. Is this really so hard to understand?
 * As for ad hominem, eligibility should have two criteria: qualifications and whether or not there is a conflict of interest. Now, if I attack someone's credentials, by your faulty definition of ad hominem, my argument is necessarily illogical because I am attacking the man. I shouldn't have to point out why this is nonsensical, but I might need to. If I say that someone is not a scientist, I am attacking his credentials. If said person is not a scientist, my argument is sound. Woopee! A logical ad hominem (at least, by your defintion). If I attack someone's by suggesting a conflict of interest, by your faulty definition of ad hominem, my attack is illogical. This is also nonsensical. Is it so hard for you to understand a conflict of interest You are pulling out terms you don't understand left, right, and centre. If you do not understand a conflict of interest now, don't ask me for any more lessons.


 * Anyway, so I've finally got you to acknowledge the issue of relevance and that the criterion allows irrelevant names. It took me many words to get that far. But I'm afraid you are petulant and exhausting. I'd rather stop here.
 * Indeed, you should !
 * I'm not pushing the issue further on the articles talk page or your talk page. Your replies here, however, invite responses. Do you believe I should not reply to you here? Yes? Then why are you posting on my talk page?


 * So you are suggesting the UN is using the issue of global warming for their wealth distribution program? You are hilarious! If you really believe that, you are a right-wing nut! In which case it's not wise to deal with you. RedRabbit1983 04:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've got a taste for ad hominems... Yet, you know no more than me what's happening behind the UN's closed doors. Socialists have this tendency to accept things that fit their political views without really questionning. That sure makes for a happier state of mind with what's happening. Good luck. --Childhood&#39;s End 13:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, how much of the last paragraph in my post was part of my argument? None! An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if part of an argument. Enrol in a first year logic class immediately, my benighted friend! You desperately need lessons!


 * What is this about me knowing everything about the UN? Where did you pull this idea from? Although I don't know everything there is to know about NASA, I do know they didn't fake the moon landings because the idea is absurd. It is a bizarre conspiracy which doesn't stand up to rational analysis. Your conspiracy about the UN is also lacking in judgement. You are coming to an unlikely conclusion based on a rabid ideology and at best circumstantial evidence.


 * Your presumption that I am an uncritical socialist is an example of a particular rhetorical device... A red herring! Should I use a different formatting to highlight those too? You know virtually nothing about my political position except that I seem to agree with the theory of global warming and that I think your idea is a loony conspiracy. Of course, that shouldn't stop you from speculating and generalising. Time for a lesson: Left-wingers are of two types: questioning and unquestioning. Guess what the two types of right-wingers are? Yes, questioning and unquestioning. Well done for making a brain-dead generalisation in your post! Anyway, I am not going to chase your red herring any further. I applaud your ability of going completely off-topic. How many more red herrings do you have? Tell me also, my friend, how many strawmans have I correctly identified altogether? I can't count them either! RedRabbit1983 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Having fun?qp10qp 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not anymore. I'm finished here. RedRabbit1983 05:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

William Shakeup
A great set of copyedits by you yesterday (or was it the day before?)! Kude.

It's dawning on me now that the die is cast, and it looks like I'm going to work on this article systematically now, if only to overcome my own problems with it. I've decided to start copyediting from the bottom section up. I probably copyedit a bit differently from you: I like to wrench up whole paragraphs by the roots, strew them round the field, and go over them with a wire brush before deciding what to do with them—an approach which sends me gradually insane; if I ever get anywhere, it is slowly. With "Style", I think I'm going to rewrite the whole thing, with different sources and from different angles, which will involve major delays for reading time. I'm sure my interference is getting up the noses of the regular editors, who seem to be running a mile; but I'm hoping they'll realise I'm no hit-and-run FAC-er. qp10qp 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are going to cross the Rubicon and lead your forces into the article? These are good tidings, my friend. I am timid copyeditor; so yes, our copyediting methods are very different. My copyedits are normally sporadic, whereas yours normally target sections methodically. Perhaps the Works section also needs to be rewritten; much of it is dreary to read. I am very pleased with your edits to Influences, a section I have been worrying about for some time.


 * Most of copyedits were months ago, and they mainly targeted the first half of the article. I didn't bother reading the second half until recently, not long before the FAC nomination. I can't remember the set of copyedits to which you refer, but thanks for the praise all the same. RedRabbit1983 08:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the quibble? qp10qp 09:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rubicon? Me and whose army?qp10qp 09:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Last paragraph of "Influences" is still a dog, mind.qp10qp 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to do any full-on copyediting till I'd addressed the references. I would have felt like a workman I saw, who painted the turds in with the lampost. So I rolled up my sleeves and climbed down the drains to clear the bad references and connect the article's plumbing properly; and now I feel quite liberated. Copyediting is way more enjoyable.qp10qp 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are the pipes running now? I don't want to call in another plumber. "Yes, yes - it all appears to be in order. My God! The pipes are leaking again! I'm afraid I can't lend my support to this nomination. Object." I dread the day. RedRabbit1983 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Plumbing seems to have been condemned on health-and-safety grounds. Must have been the chewing gum I stuck in the leaks.qp10qp 03:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So an old tradesman's trick has been found wanting? I am very glad you have carried out an audit of the plumbing; editors plumbers are in need of sound advice. FA nomination Episode 5 (I am using Star Wars numerals) will be coming soon no doubt! RedRabbit1983 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard III (play)
Personally I'd be more than happy, but I think, to be fair, you should make the suggestion on the article's talk page where it'll be spotted by anyone who's watching the article. Deb 16:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Rosaline
Hey, this Shakepseare-related article is about to pass GA, but needs a copyedit, and I was wondering if I could get your help. Right now, I still have a few changes to make, but whether you want to do it now or wait until I'm done with those is fine with me. Just let me know. Wrad 17:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving on Saturday. If I find the time I'll have a look. RedRabbit1983 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help in getting Rosaline to GA. I have another article that will probably need your attention soon.  I'll let you know when I'm about to put it up for GAC. Wrad 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Shakespeare Collaboration
The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In spite of Wrad's message above, I'd be really grateful if your strong copyedit skills could be applied to the lede of the new article at Romeo and Juliet on screen, which I've also made the new "screen" section of Romeo and Juliet. I'm afraid my ability to write intelligently absolutely escapes me when I try to write sourced prose. I think it's because my own writing style is so obsessively first-person. Whatever the reason, the section definitely has a context problem and a passive-voice problem. It could use another pair of eyes. I'm turning in now, anyway, but I will look in on Wikipedia tomorrow. AndyJones 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you. I'll incorporate what you've done. I see your problems with the first para. I'll try to make sense of it before I bother you with that bit, again! AndyJones 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

guide to copy-editing
Thanks for your comment. Are you interested in becoming involved with the effort to maintain the standards of writing in the FAC room? You'll find a heated discussion on the talk page there in which the director of FAC seems to be undermining our attempts to do that. It's also on his own talk page (Raul654). Tony 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Freud Bread
You hit the nail on the head. I had just been to the shop to buy a loaf of bread. And behold, there was this stunningly beautiful girl serving, presumably a student (or an angel). Very posh (what's wrong with the upper classes these days, sending their daughters out to work?), and quite bewitching. She couldn't make the bar code thingie work on the bread and manipulated the latter viciously in all directions. She made quite an impression on both me and my bread, the latter being misshapen now, like a jelly in a high wind, to use a Wodehousism. D'you know something, I think I need to pop out for some milk.qp10qp 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

FA?
I'd like Shakey to go up again in the next few days. I've copyedited the whole thing now (told you I'm slow), though I can't make many of my edits stick in the "Life section", where others (not you)) seem to prefer windier versions. The article meets the criteria now, in my opinion, and the copyediting and referencing have been addressed, which were the main problems last time. The article will never be perfect, though; it's too massive and various a subject. It would be nice to have several people nominating. Would you be willing to sign up to a nomination?qp10qp 13:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Soon. I'll brush over the article and then lend my support. I look forward to reading the FAC responses again! RedRabbit 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Just for any one who might read this, I wasn't asking for "support" at the FAC itself, but (as we both know) for the nomination. I will be fact-checking "Life" over the next couple of days, so that I know that section as well as the rest and feel that I can vouch for it. I've also got some visual stuff to add, which should give the page an appearance boost; and then I'll be ready to walk into the storm.qp10qp 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll support the nomination. If there are errors, let the reviewers chew on them. RedRabbit 01:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wolfie edits
I stand corrected. Usually, I am a grammar witch. Nice to know there is still something to strive for. :) - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs
I've just caught up with the last four comments! No, I didn't expect it; though I expected the article to pass because it checks against the criteria. This may just be the calm before the storm, of course. If Awadewit, Sandy, or Tony review, they'll give us some work to do, all right: but I'd welcome that because I trust them, and their observations would help improve the article.qp10qp 11:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice that you have reappeared!
And gratulations for the barnstar you have received! What made you to change username? By the way, I have not read Cicero in Latin, but in Swedish. I studied Latin for a year, but decided to stop and continue on history. During my student days my life became so entangled I decided to enter psychotherapy. I was impressed by the result of it and started a long and arduous road to become a psychotherapist.

As you can see, I have for some time quitted Cicero, - I disliked so much the daily vandal-hunting one must do on that page. I went to "greener pastures" (i.e. vandal free, or so I thought) of orthodox studies. I am thinking of returning to Cicero after finishing my business with the Finnish Orthodox Church. Have you thought about adding anything to that site? Anyway, nice to "see" you again.--Tellervo 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the BS
I'm so glad it's nearly over (though we will have to perpetually defend the blasted thing against its ruin). I can't wait to go back to my former habit of working on obscure articles which no one is the slightest bit interested in.

I'll have a look at your copyediting project soon. I've developed my own system, which borders on the bizarre and might amuse you.qp10qp 21:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Comedy
See my post on the project page. We have a bit of a collaboration going on Romeo and Juliet already. I was actually hoping you might copyedit it a bit. Please, please? :) Wrad 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I take it that everything else has been addressed? I'll copyedit it, if time permits, before it is submitted for review. But I would appreciate work from the others first. I have a special interest in Comedy because I am reading it in a group in a few weeks. RedRabbit 16:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was copyediting it myself, but since I wrote a lot of it, I don't know how well I did. I have an interest in Comedy as well, as it's one of my favorite of his plays. Wrad 16:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'll start when I am feeling up for it. Right now, I am dead tired. RedRabbit 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Go ahead and nibble on that carrot you were talking about... You've earned it. Wrad 16:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakes FA
From Wikipedia talk:Featured articles: Shakespeare has been promoted, but the bot has yet to update the talk page. Awesome work on that article btw. CloudNine 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No worries
I haven't heard it in real life, so maybe it's an internet thing. I've heard Australian cricketers say it, though. They also seem to start a lot of their sentences with "look", which over here would seem slightly rude.

I must point out, frowning, that I am not an Englishman. I'm Cornish. Where I come from, instead of saying "no worries", or whatever, we say "handsome".qp10qp 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't apologise, I wasn't really serious about not being English (I support the England cricket and football teams, and my daughters are technically half-emmet, so I must be). But it's little known that the Cornish are a nation (the only one within the English state, though officially unrecognised) and so I put the fact about whenever I can. I used to have the Cornish flag on my user page, but I don't like other types of nationalism, so perhaps I should avoid it in my own case.


 * Many congratulations on the prize! How did you win it, you clever chap, and what course are you going to go on?qp10qp 12:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)



A tall promise
Do you remember how you promised to help me to improve the article about Cicero to GA status? I hope you are intent on it still. Never mind your insufficient knowledge of Latin. (Btw. how far have you proceeded in studying it?) What I especially like is your fluent English, what a pity I don't have it. --Tellervo 15:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

R&J ready?
Do you think that Romeo and Juliet is ready, copyedit-wise, for a GA nomination? Everything else seems to be in order... Wrad 04:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably; I haven't read through most of it, though. I'll support you either way. RedRabbit 06:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sycorax (Shakespeare)
This is on hold for GA status. I've narrowed everything down to copyedit issues. It's pretty short, so shouldn't take too long to review. Could you give it a look-over? Wrad 17:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do so tomorrow if I can catch up on some much-needed sleep. RedRabbit 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for all the help on these, by the way. I'd be stuck in a hole without you. Wrad 02:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate
The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet
The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)