Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romeo and Juliet


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 23:21, 22 November 2008.

Romeo and Juliet

 * Nominator(s): Wrad, AndyJones, Malkinann

This article has been a GA for awhile and now, after a peer review from Awadewit and the like and a lot of work from the gang at WikiProject Shakespeare has, in my opinion and others', reached FA level. (Members of the collaboration are invited to add their names under "Nominator(s)" above.) Wrad (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am delighted to co-nominate this article. AndyJones (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And the peer review can be seen at Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. AndyJones (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am similarly delighted to co-nominate this article. -Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - I helped very minorly with the prose but as usual the dream team of Andy and Wrad has polished this article to a point where there's not much to be cleaned up anymore. Great work, guys! &mdash; Ceran ♦ (Sing) (It's snowing in NJ already!) 22:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * http://www.classicistranieri.com/public/post/william-shakespeare-romeo-and-juliet-8492.asp deadlinks
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as PLMA.
 * Gosh, I don't even know what PMLA means. I've never heard it referred to as anything else. Can't we just use the common title? Wrad (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that the actual name of the journal? Or is it just the shorthand, kinda like EHR is shorthand for English Historical Review? As a note, PMLA redirects to another article, use that? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the journal's homepage. It doesn't even say what it stands for (surprised me too!) So if they don't bother to tell us, should it matter to us? Wrad (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PMLA says what it stands for here - I've changed the MLA's wiki page to say what it stands for, and spelled out the abbreviation in R&J - although if the journal is nearly always said as PMLA, that might be confusing too. -Malkinann (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm kind of torn here... Wrad (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is referred to as PMLA in conversation and in citations. Awadewit (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're using that now. I changed it. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On a quick look, the prose appears to be good. Tony   (talk)  11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Images are spot-clean-free as a whistle with appropriate out-of-copyright PD tags for all. No problems. --M ASEM  19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Another wonderful article by the Shakespeare crew! Wow! This article covers all major aspects of the play: its plot, its sources and dating, its interpretation, its reception and staging, and its adaptations. I'm so impressed! The research is impeccable and the writing is clear. The only tiny problem that I saw in rereading the article is that the "Sources" are not listed in a completely standard style - for example, some are missing publication locations, some have information on the series to which they belong in the wrong place, etc. If someone could go through all of the sources again and fix these small problems, that would be wonderful. I would do it myself, but I don't work with templates since they are the devil incarnate. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Publication locations fixed. I'm having trouble finding the series problem, though. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Same question from me: if you can clarify the series problem, I'll be happy to try to fix it. AndyJones (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the "series" parameter to Gibbons and Levenson with related tweaks. Awadewit, does that deal with your point? AndyJones (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gibbons, Brian (1980). Romeo and Juliet, The Arden Shakespeare Second Series. London: Thomson Learning. ISBN 9781903436417. - I don't think Brian Gibbons wrote R&J. Shouldn't he be the editor? Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant oppose. First, thank you for taking the time to work on this important piece of literature!!  I thought the writing was excellent, and overall this is a good and valuable article, but I don't think it is quite ready for FA status yet.
 * I do not like that the body of the article begins with a section that is essentially a list. I expected the character section to include only the major characters, and to provide a short description of the character and/or that character's importance in the work.
 * See discussion below your comments. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am lost as to where to reply, so here it is. I think this section is much, much better, but it needs an introductory sentence, something along the lines of "Romeo and Juliet depicts the interactions between three prominent families in Verona..." I also think that the "Others" bullet point needs to go away.  The prose may also need a bit of work -- " He feels alienated by the feud between his family and the Capulets" -- alienated from what? Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I like your introductory sentence suggestion: I'll incorporate that and fix the alienation sentence. I'm at a bit of a loss to deal with your suggestion that we lose "others", though. Is it your view that we can cover the play's characters without dealing with Friar L? Or that we should pretend that he belongs to one of the households? If either of those then I disagree. What is your suggestion? AndyJones (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The original list is back in the article. I find this a violation of 1a (the article body begins with a list that is not even in complete sentences, with no context given whatsoever) and 4 (the list duplicates some information discussed in other parts of the article and includes information that is overly detailed for this article). Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that the Synopsis should begin with a quote from the play. To me, that is not very encyclopedic.  I'd put the quote in a quote box and embed it further down the section.
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The synopsis seems to miss a few details. It mentions that Romeo and Juliet don't know that their families are feuding, and then the next sentence Juliet is vowing her love despite Romeo being from a family that her family detests.  It also doesn't specifically point out which is the famous balcony scene (a large oversight considering a picture caption points to this event).  I also don't know why the nurse is mentioned.  Yes, she is a character, but is it really important that we know in the short synopsis that Juliet was raised by a funny nurse?
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Friar's name is spelled both Lawrence and Laurence in the article
 * Fixed with 'w' version. Wrad (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not exactly correct - " Another reading introduced early in the century argued that the tragedy is allowed to occur as a just punishment upon the two families, who are reconciled by the experience" because in a previous paragraph the article mentions that this thought (that the tragedy is a punishment for feuding families) is first attributed to Nicolas Rowe in the 18th century.
 * Removed it. Not sure how that got duplicated. Good catch. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * subplot or sub-plot? Both are used in one paragraph, and the latest incident is wikilinked, not the first.
 * Fixed. Used hyphen. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the Critical history section should probably be moved further down the article, into Context and interpretation or into themes and motifs
 * I can see why you would think this, but I disagree. I think it's valuable to preface any critical discussion with a short history of that discussion. This is how we did it in Hamlet. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The image caption of the painting of Samuel Pepys should probably also include the details that he was the earliest critic
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Romeo's reckless nature and the feuding families are briefly brought up in the critical history section, but never expanded on anywhere else in the article. Are these important themes that might need to be mentioned in greater detail?
 * Those are brought up as themes that were once popular among critics, but no longer are. We tried to reserve the greater detail for more current theories. Wrad (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this ties into the fact that I thought the critical history section should be moved into a different area. Much of what is in the themes section expands on the critical history.  You could really take the entire second paragraph of critical history and stick it in the Fate and chance subsection. Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of that second paragraph is that older critics argued about the morality of the play, not the fate and chances of the play. Nowadays the argument is "fate versus happenstance", back then the argument was "'They deserved what they got' versus 'they didn't deserve what they got.' I'll try to fix it a bit to make it clearer. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it a little, but could others comment on this? I can see why Karanacs wants it moved, but I'm not sure where else it would fit, and I don't want to merge it with the fate section because the current fate debate is different in many ways from the moralistic arguments of past centuries. Wrad (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Shakespeare's Day section refers to the other playwrights by their last names only; many readers may not be familiar with this time period, so I would recommend including the full names of Marlowe, Kyd, and Jonson.
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(unind) I have already stated why film articles are not a good comparison. Television is no different. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I agree that the character list is pointless as it stands, but I've had no success forging a consensus on that issue with the Shakespeare editors. Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To call the character list "pointless" shows how uncompromising some of this pages editors can be, and completely negates the opinions of other editors. While valid arguments for and against may be made, to call the whole section "pointless" is insulting.Smatprt (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing it. We have a precedent for doing so in Hamlet and there simply isn't enough room to discuss the characters individually in prose. We already have relevant discussion in criticism sections. Wrad (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just changed my mind on this point. I'd written up a long rambling argument for why removing the character list would violate 1(b) and 1(a), and suggesting several possible compromise solutions (and even a few counter-arguments, in the interest of fairness); but looking at Hamlet again I find I've changed my mind. With a See also/Main article type setup, dropping the character list from the article actually works quite well. My one worry is that it will tend to nudge editors in the direction of including an explanation of the characters as they are mentioned in the Synopsis. That thing is convoluted enough as it is without adding a few tens of words extra to each sentence. --Xover (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose removing the character list and will oppose this article becoming a featured article without it. This is a play, not a novel, and as such, the character list is an indispensable element. The precedent set by Hamlet was a huge mistake. Any reader coming to this article will expect it and deserve to have it provided. Just as most every movie article has a character list, and most every Broadway and West End play has a character list, so should every Shakespeare play article. Another key reason, as minimally referred to above, is that it simply makes the synopsis far easier to understand, especially in the convoluted plots that are evident in many Shakespeare plays. The alternative, expanding the synopsis to properly explain each character, would become, at best, unwieldy and, at worst, ridiculous. If these plays were written now, they would come complete with cast list, originating actors, national tour actors, etc. Why is this different for a Shakespeare play? Just because we don't have a list of the original actors to go with it? I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Thanks for hearing my long ramble.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look here, there are only three play articles that are FAs, Hamlet, The Country Wife, and A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. None of them have character lists. We had a huge discussion about this at WP:Theater and came to the conclusion that it should be decided on a case by case basis. The character list for the Hamlet article is easily accessible through a link and, I think, provides everything you are arguing for above. The character list simply doesn't fit into the article. It seems way out of place in an article full of great prose and citations to have an uncited list of characters where it isn't really needed. Wrad (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. Of course a character list is needed. You want citations for a character list? Easy. To restate - having a character list in a different location from the synopsis is a huge error. Smatprt (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The main point is, that with all current FA play articles not having character lists, opposing because such a list is absent really doesn't seem valid. Wrad (talk) 05:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When "all" is a grand total of "3", I think your argument does not carry much weight. My opposition is as valid as the next person, especially since this has generated so much discussion over the years. I will continue to oppose if the list is removed. If the main opposition is "a list" - then simply turn it into prose, with citations! Please explain why this would not be a credible compromise. In articles on television series and films, the character section is a required element, but it is recommended it be in prose. I suggest we take the same approach with this article and see how it develops. Smatprt (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What exactly would such a section contain that the article doesn't already have? Wouldn't we just be duplicating things and wasting space? Why can't we just provide a link to a character list for people who want to know more as we did in Hamlet? How is that deficient? With film articles at least you can discuss the cast and how they interpreted their roles and why the director chose who he did to play the parts. No such possibility here. Whatever such a section would conceiveably contain is already in the rest of the article, in my view. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since the works of Shakespeare are often compared to modern films, why don't you check out the NUMEROUS (far more than 3) FA film articles, including these "3" - Mulholland Drive [], Sunset Boulevard  [], and  Richard III   []. These cast sections either provide a simple list (Sunset Blvd) or, in prose, briefly discuss THE CHARACTERS (Mulholland Drive), or, in prose, provide a character description, along with some trivia about the actor who played them (Richard III). You could also peruse the NUMEROUS (far more than 3) FA television articles that have character sections that actually discuss the characters (and not much about the actors interpretations or directorial choices involved)Smatprt (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

*Support if cast list is retained.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC) ** Strongly Oppose if cast list is removed.Smatprt (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC) (unind) Stop with the personal attacks Smatprt. What was just added had no citations and added no commentary besides what we already have on the page. It basically just disguised the list as prose. A list is still a list, even if it looks like prose, when all you do is essentially delete bullet points. If that paragraph is a sign of what is to come, then I don't see how such a section will add anything to the article. Wrad (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: On the issue of character lists, I agree that they are not necessary in all theatre articles, especially when there is a link to a separate article that gives the information in an easily accessible form. There are good scholarly reasons not to include such a list in Shakespearean play articles, namely that no such lists ever appeared in any published editions during Shakespeare's lifetime. A dramatis personæ list is a later editorial imposition, along with many act and scene divisions. Taking a quick glance over the article now, there are, however, a couple of points I'd like to raise. Firstly, I'm looking at the article on a widescreen monitor, and the layout of the pictures, the synopsis one esp., needs some work. This leads me to consider whether all of those pictures are relevant to the article. I see that the performers and critics are relevant, but the others, the illustrations by later painters, just seem misplaced. I know that it's nice to have some kind of image to illustrate the article, but I find the current four paintings--the madox brown, hayez, fussli, and bunbury--just look cheesy and anachronistic. I don't have my nice Shakespeare images book to hand here at the moment, but maybe there's a better historical actor/actress one i can upload later... The Cushman sisters would be a great header, but perhaps it would be a little too controversial to have a cross-dressed lead. Perhaps there's a Artistic depictions of R&J subarticle waiting to be written? (Not that I could...) Coming from a theatre background, the intro statement about tragic romances stretching back to ancient greece seems a little misleading too, as stands. It makes it sound like there is a connection between ancient Greek drama and R&J, which there isn't; not explicitly, i know, but that was the first thought i had when reading. Perhaps something like classical romances? Using Ancient greek to describe 2nd century doesn't seem quite right, since this is usually used to refer to 5th c bce. Finally, the separation of feminist and gender studies sections seems wrong. Looking at the crit described under gender studies, it doesn't seem to be a gender studies argument at all, but rather a queer studies one. Do the critics mentioned explicitly describe their approach in these articles/books as gender studies? Otherwise, the article is collapsing sexuality into gender, which most gender and sexuality critics would repudiate. Oh yes, one final unpleasant one. The precise format of the citations isn't standard. At least, that used in Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. The one here isn't that. Is it another standard? Compare the use of brackets and fullstops in the two articles to see what I mean. That's my two-pence worth. Good work and congrats to all. DionysosProteus (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent comments, thanks. I'm breaking out your action points for ease of discussion, below (and feel free to edit me if you feel I'm misrepresenting you) AndyJones (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC):
 * Various re:character list.
 * I think we have a consensus now to remove the character section. Several have spoken against it and offered their reasons, with only one opposing. Wrad (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I object to this proposed action and dissagree that a "consensus" exists. I also object that no reasonable compromise has even been contemplated. I strongly oppose on the grounds that this would strongly violate section 1(b) of the featured article criteria, and, as a result, violate 1(a) as well.Smatprt (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got to admit, though, that you're the only one who thinks so, and that five other editors have provided reasons for removing it that are just as strong, if not stronger, than yours are. Seems like a consensus to me. Wrad (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Character lists: The original objection stated: "I do not like that the body of the article begins with a section that is essentially a list. I expected the character section to include only the major characters, and to provide a short description of the character and/or that character's importance in the work." This is completely different from advocating the complete removal of the list. Instead of using this criticism as a way to delete the list entirely, I suggest you work towards a compromise that actually addresses what the reviewer was saying. Again - at the very least the article should have the major characters and a short description and/or the character's importance. To jump to "we now have a consensus" is a) a rush to judgement; and b) someone underhanded. Smatprt (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, let's cut the accusations here. Most people want this article to do what Hamlet does. You can't deny that. We've had this discussion before. What exactly constitutes a "main" character? Why list them all when they're already talked about in the article body. It's like the infobox discussion all over again, except now you're on the other end. If you think there is a way to make a good character section, then make one on your userspace to show us. As of now, I don't see how such a section would add anything to the article that isn't already there. Prove me wrong. Until then, there is a clear consensus that the section as it stands now is detrimental and should be removed. Wrad (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * El Señor Presidente has a "Character" section, if you are interested in a model. It describes the main characters and is not a list. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the section as it is currently a list and the vast majority are against it. If anyone wants to re-add the section with prose and citations, they are welcome to it. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How pushy you are Wrad. I think it hurts these pages sometimes. Thank you, however, to Awadewit for offering a character section in prose to use as a model. Until it is added, this article is sorely lacking and should not pass FA. I will work on it as time permits, but other editors should have a go as well, especially the nominators. To start, I will restore the character list and work from there. It is good to see at least one editor on this page is able to either compromise or offer alternatives instead of just threatening to delete material. Here are some other models from FA articles:Mulholland Drive [], and Richard III []. Take out the actor trivia from the Richard III article and you have all that is needed. These models show why film sections are useful, and in no way reflect Wrad's earlier dismissal of them. (Shakespeare plays and Films are compared all the time, in countless ways, Wrad. Give it a chance at least.)Smatprt (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No serious scholarly work that I have seen discusses R&J characters in the way El Senor Presidente does, unless you count Sparknotes as a serious, scholarly work. I see no reason why we should do it when no other serious work does. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The layout of the pictures, the synopsis one esp., needs some work. This leads me to consider whether all of those pictures are relevant to the article. I see that the performers and critics are relevant, but the others, the illustrations by later painters, just seem misplaced. I know that it's nice to have some kind of image to illustrate the article, but I find the current four paintings--the madox brown, hayez, fussli, and bunbury--just look cheesy and anachronistic.
 * See also the discussion at Talk:Romeo_and_Juliet. There were certainly placement problems and I think I've reached a version that I'm happy with, if you'd like to take another look. I can't quite see how to address your "cheesy and anachronistic" problem, though: cheesiness doesn't sound fixable to me, and I think you'll need to explain why you feel an illustration of Romeo and Juliet is anachronistic in an article about Romeo and Juliet. AndyJones (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image you particularly drew attention to, L’ultimo bacio dato a Giulietta da Romeo, looks fine to me: can you clarify what "esp. needs some work" about it? AndyJones (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that I've fixed it myself, if that edit works for everyone else. It was breaking into the following section on my monitor but is no longer doing that now. The c18th actress image is still breaking into the 19th section on mine, but i can't see how to fix that. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * done ??? AndyJones (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * About the images of paintings in general: what I mean by anachronistic is that they offer images that are neither of Shakespeare's time nor of contemporary versions. They don't reflect actual stage practice so I'm not sure that they serve any real purpose. The fix for cheesiness would be to delete. I can see how one, or a galley, would be pertinent to the section on literature and art, but not really for the rest of the article, unless the painting illustrates a particular critical argument. No doubt it's my own distaste for c19th art in general that motivated initially, but i also thought that having a picture in an article required it to be more than merely illustrating, but rather had to be relevant to the body of the text. The italian one in the synopsis and the friar lawrence one could both be used in the synopsis (layout permitting) with relevance as illustrations of particular episodes in the story, i guess. perhaps the italian one could have a caption that points to the text in that way (the caption stating the episode in the synopsis and the act/scene)? DionysosProteus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To what extent do today's image changes satisfy your concerns here? I now see only two images that could be described as illustrative in the sense that you've used it here: the main picture next to the lede, and the one you moved yourself in the Synopsis section. AndyJones (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image layout looks much better. The c18th is still overhanging into the c19th on this widescreen, though only the sub-header itself is affected. I can't remember the structure of the play well enough to do myself, but a clarifying caption on the synopsis image might still be a good idea - something along the lines of... oh, I just went to check the synopsis to pinch a sentence, but the scene that's illustrated isn't detailed in the synopsis. Something like "Romeo leaves Juliet after a night of passion ([act].[scene)." Just to underline why the image is there. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Cushman sisters would be a great header, but perhaps it would be a little too controversial to have a cross-dressed lead.
 * Yes, but we already have so many headings that adding another would be pushing it. Wrad (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Proteus means that the Cushman image would be a good one top-right in the article. (Is this right?) AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was the very first image I was thinking of, but the Cushman sisters would probably be a little eccentric. I'll have a look in my image book (won't get to it for a couple of days) for a more suitable historical image and run that past you all. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The intro statement about tragic romances stretching back to ancient greece seems a little misleading too, as stands. It makes it sound like there is a connection between ancient Greek drama and R&J, which there isn't.
 * done ??? AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there is a connection. See the first paragraph of the 'Sources' section. Wrad (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that isn't really Ancient Greece, though? Wrad (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was an implied sense when I read it, rather than what it actually said, that I was thinking of. Students habitually think of Shakespeare as writing with Greek tragedy in mind, when this is at best a minor marginal influence, if at all. The present version reads much better I think and avoids the implication. However, looking at it now, I wonder whether it's needed in the intro at all. The Ovid et al are detailed in the sub-section. Might that bit in the intro not start simply with "Its plot is based on..."? DionysosProteus (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Ancient greek to describe 2nd century doesn't seem quite right, since this is usually used to refer to 5th c bce.
 * done ??? AndyJones (talk) 12:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * the separation of feminist and gender studies sections seems wrong. Looking at the crit described under gender studies, it doesn't seem to be a gender studies argument at all, but rather a queer studies one. Do the critics mentioned explicitly describe their approach in these articles/books as gender studies? Otherwise, the article is collapsing sexuality into gender, which most gender and sexuality critics would repudiate.
 * Yes, you seem to be right that there's a problem, here. I fixed the prose in this section in response to a peer-review comment, but didn't think to revisit the heading. I don't have Halio here, but I'll be able to check it when I'm next at the University. My recollection, though, is that Halio doesn't divide up the ideas expressed in this section under the subheadings used in the article. Therefore as an interim fix I'll change the "gender" heading to a "queer studies" one, pending me doing some more research in the next day or so. AndyJones (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The source I used referred to it as queer studies, but since I couldn't find the article on it to link to, I linked instead to gender studies, and that kind of got carried over. The best heading is clearly 'queer studies'. Wrad (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. My amendment maybe enough to consider this done then??? AndyJones (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Wrad (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can link to Queer theory - I meant to mention this, too, but forgot. Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, although I used the heading "Queer theory" I linked to "Queer studies". I wonder why those are two separate articles and if one is clearly a better target than the other. At a quick glance, they both seem to cover similar ground. AndyJones (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget I spoke: Queer theory clearly the more thorough of the two articles. AndyJones (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The precise format of the citations isn't standard. At least, that used in Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. The one here isn't that. Is it another standard? Compare the use of brackets and fullstops in the two articles to see what I mean.
 * Hmm, no, Hamlet uses something close to APA style. Romeo and Juliet uses the Harvard referencing format (see second example in lede). More importantly, the article is internally consistent, clear, and unambiguous in its citation style; lets try to avoid descending into debates about which citation system is The Right One™ and what color to use for the full stops after an abbreviated citation to a journal article published only bi-quarterly if the current quarter had a full moon and the author was blonde. :-) --Xover (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your problem on this one? A typcal R&J footnote reads:
 * Spencer (1967: 284).
 * ...and a typical Hamlet footnote reads:
 * Hattaway (1987, 16).
 * ...so I can't really identify the issue. Are you saying you would be happy with a comma after the date but you aren't happy with a colon? If your problem is with the "Secondary sources" sections then remember that these sources are all templated: if you don't like their layout it's a problem with user preferences, not with this article. AndyJones (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hamlet is the MLA author-date system. I instigated it. See the MLA manual for details. My concern was simply that the R&J is using a system, rather than expressing a preference for which one ought to be standard. If it's consistent with Harvard, which I've never used myself, that's fine and dandy. DionysosProteus (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: please read the WP:FAC instructions regarding the use of graphics. I've removed the green "done" checkmarks.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, don't use the done template, right? :) Wrad (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can use the Done-t and Not done-t (❌) templates instead as they emit just plain text. --Xover (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you can't. There is a limit on the number of templates that can be on a page, and if you use templates on an FAC, when it's archived it can cause problems on the monthly archive pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct (see Template limits). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a great articte I agree it should be a FA.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Registered today, second edit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Character section resolved - Smatprt wrote a new section here that I am happy with. Leave comments on the section here. Wrad (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes: that may be an acceptable compromise. We will have to see if those who have commented on the old section are happy with this new arrangement. One practical difficulty was that it was an entirely new section introduced into a featured article candidate while the FAC was going through, with no time to achieve FA-quality prose or FA-quality sourcing. I have vigorously attacked it today, but I could use some input from those who have commented above on whether this section staisfies their concerns or (at least) is going in the right direction. AndyJones (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Great work Andy. Really. To give credit where its due, I didn't really write the section - I merely imported the information from the individual Character articles. Due to Andy's fine work, it's much better now.Smatprt (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Smatprt has two declarations; one needs to be struck. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.Smatprt (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - What is going on with the gallery? Usually galleries are only used in articles about art, when it is imperative to see each image. I am not sure that it is imperative to have all of these images. Do you know how many more illustrations of R&J could be added? The article will be taken over! I suggest a Commons gallery instead. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with taking it out. We can't put all of our images in there, you're right. Wrad (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A gallery is not the answer here, though some if not all can be spread around the article. There's room for one next to the huge TOC for a start. The Pepys portrait seems dispensible to me, and some of the paintings.  Are there no free images of productions?  One of the two Leightons on Commons (not the "in art" category) and/or this Millais, or the rather different drawing for it here are better than most of those used now. Johnbod (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gallery is now removed. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are now too few images; I find it hard to support as it is, with several screenfuls passing with no images. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it'd be a good idea to use TOClimit the same way it's used in Animaniacs to reduce the length of the TOC? -Malkinann (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably would. Wrad (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually let me try something else. Wrad (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrad, you really need to read the comments here better. Awadewit suggested creating a "Commons gallery", not simply deleting the gallery to oblivion. You created the same problem with the Character section - simply deleting instead of reading the comment that it should be in prose, not in a list. Could you please be more attentive and not so quick to simple delete?


 * On the Gallery issue, I would create a commons gallery, but I am not up on that process. Does anyone of our editors know how to do this? Having a Commons gallery on the plays of Shakespeare sounds very useful for the many individuals that look for images (students, media, theatre companies, designers, etc.). Right now we have a nice group of R&J images collected together and waiting for a home. Once it is started, I will happily keep it going and start moving the other Shakespeare galleries into it. Smatprt (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. There already is a Commons gallery here at Wikicommons. Wrad (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a category, not a gallery. In a gallery, one can annotate the images. See, for example, the Mary Shelley gallery. Awadewit (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, cool. Well, one needn't worry in either case, since all the images are in the category and haven't been sent into oblivion. I look forward to seeing a Romeo and Juliet gallery, if someone should choose to make one, but I don't plan to be part of it. Wrad (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, the images should be sent to WP:GL to be fixed up. A lot of them were scanned on an angle and could be relatively easily fixed up with some straightening and a good (modest) crop.  Most of the images could use to be higher resolution but at least the first step is doable and should be attempted before this becomes an FP. gren グレン 01:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you experienced with this? Could you fix them? Wrad (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, but I just made the request at Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop. Hopefully they will help some.  Feel free to modify the request. gren グレン 12:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's kind. Good one, thank you. AndyJones (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question I can't get my head around all of this images stuff. I'm told we have too many, too few, not enough of one type or another... When we add them, we're told they aren't in the right place. What exactly are the rules on this? To illustrate the confusion we're having, let me copy below a comment made by a project member:

"This is why Wikipedia is such fun. We have the Avoid instruction creep principle, yet we cannot place this picture because:
 * We have a rule that says we must place it within the section.
 * We have a rule that says we cannot encroach on another section.
 * We have a rule that says we cannot resize it.
 * We have a rule that says it cannot be on the left.
 * We have a rule that says it cannot be on the right.
 * We have a rule that says we cannot turn it around so it could go on the right.
 * We have too many rules." - AndyJones

So again, what exactly do people want and what exactly do the rules say we can't do? Wrad (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added some images, including one of a performance. Hopefully this resolves things for all parties. Wrad (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello all. Firstly, thank you for your responses and work in light of my concerns above, it all looks good. I've left comments with regard to the on-going debate about character lists on the article's talk page, but I wanted to add one final thought about the images on the page. I had a look in my Shakespeare image book and there was nothing particularly iconic for R&J. I would like to suggest that the new one of a 1908 performance be considered for the Introduction section, instead of the painting that's currently there. It's actual stage practice (albeit not a famous production) and seems more iconic an image to me. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I fail to see anything iconic about it at all. There just aren't any really iconic R&J images I think, or apparently any good free production ones, but the Ford Madox Brown certainly catches an iconic moment, and is a significant painting. In terms of artistic quality that and the Fuseli, which matches the light & dark theme, as has been mentioned, the Millais (drawing best perhaps) and the Leightons seem to be the best available - the last two artists also include a wider range of characters, which is useful as all the actor pics are just one or two people. The Boydell Gallery one now added is far too fuzzy, and just not a very attractive or significant image. Why we need a great big Pepys I can't see. The Hayez seems dispensible to me; it is more or less illustrative, but not very attractive. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Pepys is too big for you, then you can adjust your preferences, can't you? I don't think that there is any better image for the Critical History section than Pepys. The Boydell Gallery image is a bit lame, but Pepys is perfect, in my opinion. Wrad (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey DP. Can we compromise and have a painting in this one rather than a stage photo (Different from what we did in Hamlet?) You know my feelings on this. :) Wrad (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was more the desire to get rid of the Madox Brown than to praise the 1908 photo, though the latter does read more clearly and immediately, to my eyes, as a R&J image than the former (it's a death-bed scene, whereas the melodramatic excess of the MBrown I find visually confused). However, it's not ideal as a lead picture. I agree that Pepys is useful and appropriate. In general, I think that a picture of actual stage practice, or an illustration/drawing/painting based on that practice, is preferable for illustrations to the articles, for the same reason that it would seem strange to have a photo of an operatic or balletic adaption of the play as the main image; the artistic renderings on the theme of the play translate one art form into another, whereas stage-practice-based images are inherent to the subject of the article. The article should also be visually arresting, however, and draw in the casual browser with a good, dynamic and relevant image in the intro. That ought to be the most important consideration, I think. Given that, perhaps I might suggest this image from the commons as a possible introduction image. It gives the same general information as the MBrown, but without the excess. Thoughts? Also, I'm sure you've probably investigated this already, and I'm not too clear on how copyright/fair use works in that area, but is it possible to have a cinema image for that section? What's the deal on screenshots or the like? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As true as it is that the play is...a play, the fact is there are many representations of Romeo and Juliet and none of them is more legitimate than the other. Theatre directors sometimes have organized scenes based on Romeo and Juliet artwork that they saw, and vice versa. This story is not confined to the stage any more than it is to the original pages it was written on. Therefore, I don't think that an image should be taken from the intro just because it isn't of a theatrical production. Wrad (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, image rules make it very difficult to justify an image in the screen section. Sad but true. Some people have a very broad definition of what a "merely decorative" image is. Wrad (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A play is its productions; they are identical. Just as the play's text, in all its various forms, "is" the play. Paintings, opera, ballet, novelizations, films and tv dramas are all "representations" at one remove. There's an increase of relevance with an image based on practice. But in this case it looks like a painting is going to offer the best option. I've scanned a couple of R&J images into the commons, so take a look if any are useful to the article: Fanny Kemble, David Garrick (detail), Sprangler Barry, Ellen Terry. I don't think there's a intro candidate there, though. If I understand you right, then, a cinema picture can be justified if it's tied in directly to the article text? In theory, that doesn't sound too difficult? DionysosProteus (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yours is one of MANY philosophies. If a play were its productions, then all productions would be identical. The play is at one remove from the text just like anything else is. However, I guess I don't really mind the image that much. PS: A copyrighted image of a movie can only be shown if that movie is specifically discussed in the text. That's basically it. Wrad (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think of it as a philosophy but it does involve the question of what a play is, I guess. You seem to assume that a play is self-identical, an identity secured by the play-text. Not only is a text often not self-identical (as our Qs, Ffs and the like demonstrate) but a play-text can claim no priority in relation to performance with regard to any claim to "be" the play. That a play's productions exist, especially with Shakespeare, in the form of a multiplicity dispersed historically and geographically doesn't invalidate that claim. A play's text(s) and its production(s) are its two modes of existence; that's what plays are (hence the etymological origin in play). With a vague gesture to Platonic forms, then, we might say that the pure form of the play is imitated bilaterally in its text(s) and performance(s), which in turn are imitated (at a second remove) in art, opera, ballet, novels and the cinema. The text is at one remove from the play, not vice versa, as it were. The article is not on "Romeo and Juliet, the phenomenon" (in which case, all representations regardless of medium would be legitimate and appropriate images), but on the play (in which case images of the text(s) and performance(s) are the most relevant, being the media in which the play exists - anything else is an adaptation). But this is a broader topic for the Theatre/Shakespeare projects in general and I digress. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've no reply, as such, but this is a great posting. Can I use it in my Thesis, please? ;-)    AndyJones (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to fair use images, I've seen a philosophy around that goes roughly "every fair use image takes us one step away from Wikipedia's mission of a truly free encyclopedia". As Romeo and Juliet is a subject which has many, many, free images available (thank you Dionysos for the uploads!) it would probably be unacceptable to choose a non-free film image, as the bulk of the critical commentary on the films has been summarised on the daughter article Romeo and Juliet on screen. -Malkinann (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The R&J article has a fair chunk on its cinematic history, so I think that it could be justified, from the sound of it. Captioning the text about R+J's record gross and target audience or somesuch with a good screenshot or even the poster that the film article uses would be my suggestion. Does the fair-use issue lower the usefulness of the article in any tangible way? There are enough images there already if it does, but if not, you might consider it. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that new photo in the lead is just awful. And it could be from half a dozen different plays (aside from being non-notable). Where was the consensus to delete the picture that was there when the article was nominated? Soemone does not like paintings, so we change it. Someone does not like lists, so we change it. I think this article has actually become worse since the nomination.
 * Who are you? Myself, Andy, and DP liked it, and nobody opposed, so we added it. We don't have to have 20 people in favor to change something, my friend. Wrad (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Who are you"? "My friend"? - Can we cut the sarcasm and attitude? See below for my response to a reasoned argument that avoided being personal. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no one signed the above post. What was I to think? Wrad (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose - the FAC process has caused this article to jump back and forth for all sorts of reasons. Personal preferences are causing mayhem. Compromises are developed and then scuttled. The article does not even follow the Shakespeare project guidelines.Smatprt (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC) :Are you opposing the article or the FAC process? The WP:BARD guideline isn't really that official, let's be honest. It only calls itself a "proposed guideline". It's a rough outline, not a set of hard and fast rules. Wrad (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, it is inaccurate to describe these recent discussions as based on personal preferences. Where that is the case, it has been clearly indicated and excepted. The discussions are based on what is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, as indicated by the various guidelines, common practices, and rules, and our sense of its possible use. These indications cover the questions of which images should be included and in what way they should be included. I have sought to limit the number of paintings because they are not directly relevant to an article on a play, as based on Wiki guidelines. That I find most of the paintings to be of a low aesthetic quality is besides the point. My understanding is that they should only be there if they can be tied into the text in some way (such as events in the synopsis) or the paintings themselves are discussed in the article. If a painting is the best option for the Introduction section, then it ought to fulfill certain criteria, involving the assessment of its iconic function first and foremost. The FAC process necessarily involves such discussions and changes. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All good points and well expressed. In response I believe that the present lead image, in that it depicts perhaps the most famous scene in the play, in fact the only scene that has achieved its own nickname - the "balcony scene", represents perfectly the criteria you have discussed. First and foremost, it is iconic; and second, it can certainly be tied to the text as it represents a crucial scene that is discussed in the synopsis. Smatprt (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on oppose: this objection cannot be actionable. It is extraordinary that an editor who has singlehandedly done so much to destabilise an article should subsequently oppose its promotion on the grounds that it is unstable. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment on above comment: Making this kind of comment is rather suspect in an FAC. In actuality, the article is quite close to the state it was in when nominated. To be upfront, I have reverted two deletions - one that was made based on the personal preferences of a reviewer that basically didn't like "paintings", and one that was made as part of a compromise that was scuttled. And I continue to watch for vandalism. Calling that "destabilization" is inaccurate and perhaps betrays a hidden agenda on the part of the commenter.Smatprt (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Question - Just to try and get a handle on the mess that this FAC has become - are the two issues up for discussion the character list and the images? Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume those were the issues, although additional problems may crop up. Having said that, based on the state of the current article I will change my "oppose" to "support". Smatprt (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply & Another Question - Yes, I think the only problematic issues are the "Characters" section and the images. The characters issue clearly remains unresolved. However I wonder if the images issue is resolved now? I see considerable changes to the images on this article, including some new uploads and some really good work at Graphic Lab/Image workshop. So my question is: is everyone happy with the current images? Is the character section the only issue at the moment? AndyJones (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the images as they currently stand, and agree that much "really good" work has been done in regard to the quality issues that were raised. Smatprt (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: In response to the above comment by Roger, I believe the article has stabilized over the last few days. If there are no further major changes in the article, which currently stands much as it was upon nomination (excepting some nice cleaning up, of course), then I wholeheartedly support it. Smatprt (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This so-called "stabilization" is a false peace created by everyone but you being sick and tired of arguing and re-arguing the same old things. No consensus has been reached on either the character list or the images. You are supporting because, for the moment, the article is the way you want it to be, because everyone else is just to tired to oppose you. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrad, please stop acting like a hurt puppy. For the record, you yourself have just recently stated that you think the article is FA with the character list intact. Andy stated "I wouldn't have submitted the article to FAC with a character list, if I hadn't thought that was the right format for it. Lots of FAs include lists or tables, where appropriate.; Xover's first perference is "a brief list, as was provided when the article was first nominated"; Shoemaker's Holiday believes that "No play article would ever pass FAC without a Dramatis Personae of some sort". And you all certainly are aware of what I believe!  It seems to me that the main opposition is coming from those who want no lists (regardless of the reasons), and/or those who want only "good prose" instead of concentrating on providing an accessible article. It's as if the opposition believes that scholars, not students, are our primary audience, and if you are not a scholar then the heck with you.Smatprt (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Smatprt, please consider refactoring your comments. It is best to comment on the content, not on perceived (and in this case incorrect) motives of reviewers. Karanacs (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues here are complex. Not everyone agrees with you, and not everyone agrees with me. I submitted the article with the list because although I preferred not to have it, I thought the article still met the criteria. Several editors in our project like them, and several don't. However, I was aware that the issue would probably be brought up at FAC, and we would have to deal with it. If the issue is going to be brought up, I'm going to make my preference known and defend it the best I can. Please, then, don't portray my nomination of this article for FA status as a statement of my support for character lists. Again, it is far more complex than that, and we need to work through the complexities and find a solution. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fine, of course, that you make your personal preference known. However, it is just as important that even now, even you still acknowledge that, with the list, you believe the article still meets the FA criteria. On this we agree. Smatprt (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's great and all, but the fact remains that there are reviewers here that disagree. It might be better for your time to talk to them, not me. I'm not the one to convince, here. Wrad (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * I personally dislike the Ford Madox Brown pic, and like the one by Dicksee which heads the article Star-crossed lovers, which brings me to my next point-
 * Image:DickseeRomeoandJuliet.jpg is a good pic. However I see it's tagged for lacking source information. I wouldn't want to use it on a featured article candidate unless & until that can be fixed. AndyJones (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "star-crossed lovers" is very familiar to lovers of Shakespeare, but not to others. I'm a kid doing my assignment on this, I look it up, and there is an expression in the first sentence of the article that I don't understand. So, I deviate from reading the article, even though I've only read half a sentence, and track the meaning, because presumably it's important if it's in the first sentence. Ok! I've found it! The explanation tells me that it means they're doomed from the start, and then tells me it has to do with astrology, but doesn't bother to tell me what it has to do with astrology, because it doesn't actually explain what "star-crossed" means. So I look up astrology to find out what "star-crossed" does mean, and it doesn't tell me.
 * In other words, explaining who Romeo and Juliet are by quoting a line from the play doesn't help. Give it to us in modern English.
 * I think you're doing kids a disservice here. I believe they'll understand it. --Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. The simplest way to read it is that they're just lovers that are really in love. I think anyone could see at least that much from the words "star-crossed". All the deeper meanings are cool, but not necessary to appreciate the thing. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have agreed, except that Wrad I think you've just misinterpreted it: star-crossed means something like "ill-fated", not what you just said.  ;-(    Would this be resolved if I put Levenson's definition ("thwarted by a malign star") in the footnote? I don't think I agree with Amandajm that the lead of Star-crossed doesn't cover it, though. It says it pretty clearly for my money: "Star-crossed lovers is a phrase describing a pair of lovers whose relationship is said to be doomed from the start. The phrase is astrological in origin, stemming from the belief that the positions of the stars ruled over people's fates." I suppose it helps if you're used to Shakespeare's language: phrases like "evermore cross'd and cross'd" don't make sense in modern English because we don't use "crossed" in the sense of "thwarted" or "obstructed", much. AndyJones (talk) 12:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done that. Not sure I want to set a precedent of glossing every line that's quoted in Shakespeare play articles, though. AndyJones (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It can also mean what I just said. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I'm just saying what it meant to mean when I read it as a kid *sniff*. :( Wrad (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "star-crossed" article is much improved, and now gives a proper explanation for anyone who needs to look it up.
 * With regards to doing kids a disservice, I disagree. Some kids persevere with difficult things. Other kids will be put off by having something quite unfamiliar in the very first line. Referring to them as "star-crossed lovers" in 2008 is unencyclopedic. It is fine to say at some point that Shakespeare describes them as "star-crossed lovers" but having it as part of the leading definition is inappropropriate. Amandajm (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be more appropriate? --Malkinann (talk) 08:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read all the comments, but I thoroughly dislike being told in the first line that their deaths are going to end a family feud. I'm sure this info can be given in a plot summary, and that there is a more subtle way of saying that their romance is a disaster.
 * Wikipedia contains spoilers. Besides, the eighth line of the play is "doth, with their deaths, bury their parents' strife" - so Shakespeare clearly considered it information his audience needed up-front. AndyJones (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Wrad (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate on my dislike of the Ford Madox Brown pic, it looks like Dame Nellie Melba playing Juliet with Enrico Caruso playing Romeo. (or to bring it more up to date Dame Joan Sutherland and Pavarotti)

Amandajm (talk) 08:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC) --Wrad (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Minor comment: I like the frequent boxes with quotes from the play, but the blue background is terrible. I personally wouldn't go with any background for any of them. Reywas92 Talk  02:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a preference, but I would just say that the background colour is a feature of the template pquote: it's not the choice of the nominators here, and it's not a fault of this specific article. AndyJones (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. Is there another Category:Quotation templates that can be used? Reywas92 Talk  22:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the one at Juliet Capulet? Wrad (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Wrad (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing the difference, the new quote boxes now look pretty dull. A different background color, or the use of boldface might be a better fix. About the quotes, they were all from the play and now one has been added from a book about the play. It seems jarring. Shouldn't the quote from the book be in the article prose section? Finally, the play quote references are not consistent.Smatprt (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Summary of status on main concerns
 * Character list: Mostly resolved. Smatprt, Awadewit, Andy, Malkinnan, Xover, and myself have reached an agreement on the talk page. Karanacs and DP have yet to weigh in.
 * Images: Mostly resolved. The only real debate I still see is on the lead image choice.
 * Critical history section: We need more input on this unresolved concern of Karanacs.

Regarding the third of these points, how do people feel about merging the current "Analysis and criticism" and "Context and interpretation" sections into a single section? It would look a bit like this (here's the diff). Without wanting to give a long explanation (although I will, if asked) I kinda prefer it in that configuration. Would that resolve Karanacs' issue? AndyJones (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. AndyJones (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Karanacs is coming back to this page, but according to the R&J talk page and his own talk page, he is apparently still opposed to the list, but willing to let the FAC director make the call. I'm personally fine with the image and with Andy's suggestion for the Critical History section. This FAC is petering out, I think because we've done about all we can do to resolve all issues. Everything else seems to be a matter of personal preference, not FAC criteria. It seems as though we've reached the point where the FAC director will just need to make a call. I would urge whoever makes the call to look over the talk page of the article to see deeper discussions behind the ones on this page, although I've tried to sum them up. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have no more to offer in this debate. With two editors vigorously opposing on irreconcilable positions there's nothing more that can be done. I suggest the FA director makes a call. AndyJones (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: this article meets the criteria (with or without the character list) and closure is long overdue. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(od) May I suggest that this FAC is now quickly closed as little will be gained by further discussion. Trial by FAC is no way to resolve the character list issue. I suggest that the FAC director (or delegate) ignores the specific declarations about including/excluding the character list as the two editors' entrenched positions cancel each other out and expressly says so in a closing executive summary. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 09:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With Davies' comments, we now have Awadewit, Roger Davies, and myself, all ardent spokespersons against character lists, nevertheless in support of this article becoming an FA. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.