Wikipedia:Peer review/Boydell Shakespeare Gallery/archive1

Boydell Shakespeare Gallery
Rupert Clayton and Awadewit have been working on this little article about an interesting eighteenth-century Shakespeare venture for a couple of months now. They are planning on taking it to FAC soon and would like help polishing and revising it. Thanks in advance! Awadewit | talk  00:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Scartol

To begin with: The use of third-person objective in the lead to this peer review is entirely inappropriate and shows evidence of hideous moral upbringing, as well as insipidly substandard prose. It must be revised immediately without discussion or question.

Seriously, though, this article is – as always for Awad's work – well-written and comprehensive in the extreme.

Lead


 * I'd like to see some mention in the first sentence of how the gallery was a collection of pictures. (This might seem obvious, but the "…also included…" clause later in the lead made me say: "Wait, what?")
 * These opening sentences have continued to pose problems. New opening paragraph: The Boydell Shakespeare Gallery was a collection of pictures commissioned by eighteenth-century engraver and publisher John Boydell in an effort to foster a school of British history painting. In November 1786, he initiated the project, which also included an illustrated edition of Shakespeare's works and a folio of prints from the London gallery. Awadewit | talk  05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the above could be remedied along with my next gripe: the split clause "He initiated the enterprise … in November 1786 in London." How about: "He initiated the enterprise in November 1786 in London by bringing together…"?
 * Revised. Awadewit | talk  05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How would you feel about changing that "enterprise" to "project"? Enterprise feels so still and formal.
 * Revised. Awadewit | talk  05:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "and their productions" in the second lead paragraph feels unnecessary (especially in a sentence with a number of phrase-tendrils).
 * Do you have another suggestion? The sentence is supposed to mean paintings of the plays and of their theatrical productions - these were both important elements and both receive treatment in the article itself. Awadewit | talk  05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see what you mean. I wonder putting the predicate at the end of the sentence is in part responsible for its awkwardness. How about: "Shakespeare enjoyed new popularity in 18th-century Britain when several new Shakespeare editions were published; his plays were revived in the theatre; and the numerous works of art were created illustrating his plays and productions of them."? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. Replaced. Awadewit | talk  08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about changing "beginning in 1791 and ending in 1803" to simply "from 1791 to 1803"?
 * Done. Awadewit | talk  05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "the original paintings of edition's plates" – either I'm dense (which is possible) or this is a confusing phrase.
 * It is and I've struggled to find a better one - thoughts? (There is supposed to be a "the" in there, but that is not the problem.) Awadewit | talk  05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find this phrase anymore (and somehow I've forgotten what it was attached to). Was it (re)moved? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I took it out - that detail seemed unimportant for the lead. Awadewit | talk  08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "and the folio of engravings he published" – would "his folio of engravings" be incorrect? That sentence just feels full.
 * That version starts to sound like he did the engravings, don't you think? If you don't think so, I'll gladly change it. Awadewit | talk  05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you're right. I guess the current wording is best. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * However, the long delay in publishing the prints and the illustrated edition prompted criticism. The final products of Boydell's ventures were not judged favourably: they were hurried and many illustrations had been done by lesser artists. Was the criticism of the first sentence here related to – or the same as – the unfavorable judgments of the second? If so, do they need to be separate sentences? If not, I'd like to see a transition word or phrase. ("…were likewise not judged favorably…")
 * Added a "therefore". Awadewit | talk  05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare in the 18th century


 * …Boydell tapped into a rich market that many others, such as actor and producer David Garrick, were also exploiting. I'd like to see a noun complementing "others", as in "other entrepreneurs" or "other investors" or some such. Also, I wonder if the "also" is needed – insofar as we're setting up a background into which Boydell entered? (I think of "also"s as being most useful when the events are happening simultaneously.) Now that I re-read the sentence, though, it seems to fit. Your call.
 * Added "entrepreneurs"; left in "also" (they were exploiting it simultaneously, I think). Awadewit | talk  05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Man, I wish we could left-margin those blockquotes when there's an image. I've asked in the IRC channel and I'm trying to find an answer as I type.
 * UPDATE: Okay, we found a way to jam in some extra CSS code to give us the left margin back. The important thing is that it's dependent on the image; if that moves or changes size, then the margin will look very odd. So leave it alone!! =) – Scartol  •  Tok  01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No touchy. :) (Why is that so hard to achieve?) Awadewit | talk  05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you asked, because I love to explain technical nerd stuff. It works like this: The tag tells the MediaWiki software: "The following words need a left-margin of 10 pixels". (Numbers are approximate.) However, when an image appears on the left, the MediaWiki software already says to itself (because of an evil bit of code known as the  tag): "Space that text over the width of the picture, plus a margin of 5 pixels." So in the case of this example, Let's say the image is 285 pixels wide, plus 5 for the margin. When the 10 pixel margin is demanded by the tag, MediaWiki says: "No sweat! It's already over 290 pixels. All taken care of." (And such a thing is not additive.)
 * The problem is that this is also the same left-margin as all the other text, so the block quote has no relative left margin. Therefore, it's necessary to say "No matter how much of a margin you might otherwise apply, indent this block 300 pixels", which gives us the 290 we'd normally have, plus the extra 10 we need to make it look like a real blockquote. Voilà! (The person who helped me figure this out – I almost fixed it by myself but like a moron I was using the wrong word for the CSS code – provided me with a snappy diagram he somehow generated of the various elements involved, but I didn't save the URL and don't know how to generate them. I'll see if I can find it.) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We should disseminate this solution somehow, because it is a widespread problem. Awadewit | talk  08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I just got done telling my 4th hour Creative Writing class about it, but they seemed disinterested. Maybe there's another avenue? Signpost? WikWeekly? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely the Signpost - they have a new section on tutorials. :) Awadewit | talk  20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure why "literary pictures" and "conversation pieces" are italicized.
 * They are terms - too confusing? Awadewit | talk  05:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems therefore like the article refers to them as phrases that were used in a particular way by the folks involved. My impulse, then, is to use quotation marks, a la neutral-distance scare quotes. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They are art-historical terms. I don't think scare quotes are appropriate, since no distancing is needed. Either italicize or do nothing, in my opinion. (Scare quotes in the humanities often indicate that the word being quoted doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't want to indicate that here.) Awadewit | talk  08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I don't necessarily have that association. Many times they are used that way in my experience, but sometimes I see them used (perhaps erroneously) to substitute for the phrase "what some people referred to as". Your call. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. Just unnecessary, I think. Awadewit | talk  20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer a word or two about what the Royal Academy exhibitions actually exhibited. Also, how about a different phrasing on the second instance, to break up the repetition of: "…attained its peak in the Royal Academy exhibitions. The Academy exhibitions became an important public event…"
 * Revised: This tradition began with William Hogarth (whose prints reached multiple strata of society) and attained its peak in the Royal Academy exhibitions, which displayed paintings, drawings, and sculptures. The exhibitions became an important public event: thousands of spectators flocked to see them each year and newspapers carried detailed reports and critiques of the works displayed. Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to stop in the middle of a section, but I've got a conference call I need to join. More to come! – Scartol  •  Tok  23:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's see how well I can peer-review while listening with one ear to the call.


 * The parenthetical phrase "as would Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery, later in the century" uses the conditional past – I don't care for it in general, and here it seems like "as did Boydell's…" would be more efficient.
 * Changed. Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * …the public was introduced to the works of Shakespeare. Hadn't they been introduced when the plays were performed back in the day? Maybe "introduced anew" or some such? Especially when the first sentence of the paragraph talks about "expanding Shakespeare's popular appeal". This dilemma continues into the next paragraph.
 * Changed to "re-introduced". Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I'm really splitting hairs here, and I apologize if this is too microscopic: …it was the mid-century Shakespearean theatrical revival that was probably most responsible… A simpler phrasing would be: "the mid-century … revival was probably most responsible…" Cutting out the "it was" phrasing would make it read more smoothly.
 * Yes, that is better - not splitting hairs at all. Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that "superb acting, unrivalled productions" is representing the majority of critical opinion, but I wonder if we still need less POV words?
 * Actually, this does represent the sources, both modern and historical. Garrick was a celebrity and people thought he was the best thing since sliced bread. That reputation has lasted. I am hesitant to change the description because this, surprisingly, reflects both primary and secondary sources. Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but shouldn't we have "what critics called" or some similar phrase? Or – even better – a direct quotation? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the critics bit. I don't want to start adding quotations. This is not an article about Garrick. :) Awadewit | talk  08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. (Makes a mental note to watch for article by Awad about Garrick at FAC two months from now.) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much the sentence "Garrick became the 18th-century embodiment of Shakespeare." adds to the paragraph. It seems to be expressed by the other elements.
 * Removed. Awadewit | talk  07:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes "18th century" is hyphenated, and sometimes it's not. Seems like it ought to be one way or the other.
 * Um, it's hyphenated when it is a compound adjective and not hyphenated when it is not. (This is actually a pet-peeve of mine.) Awadewit | talk  03:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! My bad. (Actually, I wrote that precisely to irk you! Yeah, that's it!) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

More to come! – Scartol  •  Tok  01:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustrated Shakespeare edition and folio

I made a bunch of comments on this section last night, but somehow they got lost; since they're not in my contribs, I'm going to assume that I was a moron and forgot to save them or something. Argh! I'll try my best to recreate them.


 * The sentence Unlike previous scholarly editions, the text was unencumbered by notes. seems out of place. I'm not sure where to move it, but it sticks out in a paragraph which mostly describes the ornate decoration of the edition.
 * I'm not sure, either. It is a really important point, though.
 * I've tried to integrate this into an earlier sentence. Awadewit | talk  04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph which starts The volumes contain the 36 plays... is filled with a technical breakdown of the data; could this be more of a prose paragraph and less a rundown of statistics? The same problem occurs at the end of the paragraph later which starts The print folio, A Collection of Prints....
 * The reason for this is the paucity of sources on Boydell's gallery. I felt that this information could be included, despite its technical status as original research because it is just counting. Anyone could verify this by themselves counting. Awadewit | talk  08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it's important information, but the style is pretty bleah. Maybe a little more commentary to go with the numbers? – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the whole issue - what commentary? The scholarship is so thin. My solution would be to take it out or cut it down - I'm not so sure how important it is. Awadewit | talk  20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we get a word on the mainstreamness of Northcote's criticism? Did other folks agree, or was he a lone voice? (I see this is revisited later in the article; maybe the quote should be moved?)
 * He was not a lone voice - I have moved his criticism to join the others. It is hard to say how representative this criticism was, but he was not the only one criticizing the project. I tried to indicate what the overall reaction was in the later section. Awadewit | talk  08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He guessed that he could sell more folios and editions if the pictures were different. The edition's primary illustrators were known as book illustrators... These sentences could use some kind of transition or link.
 * I rearranged the paragraph.


 * ...it was reissued throughout the 19th century. Could we have a "repeatedly" or "many times" after "reissued"? I think it would eradicate a slight vagueness.
 * Except I don't know how many times, so I don't know if it was "repeatedly". :) Awadewit | talk  08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas! I'm hoping someday soon I'll find a text entitled An Exploration of John Boydell's Folio Reprinting During the Nineteenth Century and Unrelated Commentary on Specific Revision and Publication Details about Balzac's Le Père Goriot. But Alibris doesn't seem to have it. =) – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

(I'm going to finish my first go-through before responding to replies. Hey! Where's my witty 2001 allusion? Just kidding.)

Gallery building


 * This contrast is echoed in Rev. George Reeves's description of Pall Mall in his A New History of London... Isn't there some license afforded to drop the first article from a title if there's a possessive pronoun preceding it?
 * Done. Awadewit | talk  08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * this property had been the home of Goostree's gentleman's club from 1773 to 1787. Begun as a gambling club for wealthy young men, it had later become a reformist political club that counted William Pitt and William Wilberforce as members. Three "club"s in two sentences; could the two sentences be combined to remove one use of "club"?
 * Nothing is coming to me here, but I'm still thinking. Awadewit | talk  20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed second "club" to "establishment". Awadewit | talk  04:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare Gallery in operation


 * It took over the public's imagination and became an end in and of itself. The last phrase is unclear. I think I know what you mean, but I'd rather have something more explicit.
 * Combined with earlier sentence and deleted vague phrase. Awadewit | talk  08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, artists who had influence with the press... "Furthermore" feels like the wrong word here. I think maybe it could even simply be dropped.
 * Deleted. Awadewit | talk  08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The list of artists feels dry. Maybe include a word or two about which plays each one painted/engraved from?
 * Trust me, that feels even drier (see list below). Awadewit | talk  08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * These days The Times is usually followed by "of London" to differentiate it from the other Times. Maybe we should do that here? Your call.
 * There was no Times of NYC, then, though. Do you still think we need to? Awadewit | talk  08:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno. It's hard to say if I'm just being US-centric. Let's not! Those who assume it's the NYT can wallow in their own foolishness! – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Collapse and List of works


 * In a blockquote: "there were few than could be approved" – is this accurate? Wouldn't it be "that"?
 * Fixed. Awadewit | talk  08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When both the Shakespeare enterprise and the Thames book failed, they had no capital to fall back upon. This sounds like the "they" refers to the enterprise and book had no capital.
 * Replaced "they" with "Boydells". Awadewit | talk  08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * there were 64 winning tickets, each costing three guineas... Didn't all the tickets cost the same? That phrase probably ought to be somewhere else.
 * Moved to after the total figure of tickets sold. Excellent point. Awadewit | talk  08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on what the bylines in the List refer to ("by William Beechey"). Is there a way to clarify without ugly-ing up that very nicely-formatted list?
 * Those are the painters. I don't really know how to make that clear in the note at the top: "These are the paintings and their painters". Ew. We could always say the list does not include the names of the engravers, thereby implying it does include the names of the painters. Awadewit | talk  08:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant a much more general description, like changing the subhead to: "List of art works" or some such. I'm thinking of the teenager who sees the list and thinks: Merry Wives of Windsor, Act I, scene 1 by Robert Smirke? Didn't Shakespeare write that?" Maybe I'm just being dense. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh God. It never occurred to me that someone would think that. Changed to "List of art works". Awadewit | talk  20:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A fine article! Thank you for bringing me in – I enjoyed learning about this important institution. As always, you need not convince me one way or another about how you proceed; I trust you to consider my suggestions and employ the most useful. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 06:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Wrad
 * I think the first section after the lead would be easier to follow if it was split into three sub-sections: "Rise of Nationalism", "Theatrical Revival", and "Shakespeare editions", or such like.
 * Good suggestion - added. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the third paragraph in the lead reads a bit funny, "which..., but..., excited..." It's all just too much to compute.
 * I think this detail isn't even necessary in the lead - removed. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the "36 plays attributed to Shakespeare" which the edition contained? Which plays were left out?
 * Well, I assume it is the 36 plays of the First Folio, as listed in the William Shakespeare article. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be nice to know if that's the case for sure. Wrad (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My sources just say "the 36 plays attributed to Shakespeare", unfortunately. However, those are the standard 36. Awadewit | talk  18:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe say in the footnote where the Hamlet quote on the sculpture came from.
 * Added. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have any Shakespeare critics examined the paintings for insights into 18th-century views of Shakespeare's plays?
 * Yes, but as there were over 100 paintings by many different artists, it is impossible to say anything as a group about the paintings. That information would have to go on the individual pages about the paintings or the artists, I feel. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the pictures and the list at the end. Pretty darn good article overall. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wondered if the list was overkill. It would be nice to eventually link each entry with either an image an article. Ah, utopian ideals. Awadewit | talk  07:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)