Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1

===Romeo and Juliet===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. This article is the current Shakespeare project collaboration for FA. We need someone to go through it with a fine comb in preparation for FAC.

Thanks, Wrad (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Current ref 74 is just a link to a website, needs a publisher and last access date at the very least, any other bibliographic details would be helpful.
 * That is a website? I'm pretty sure that's a book. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  16:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Current ref 101 has a bare url link in it. Would be nice if you formatted the link with a nice pretty title.
 * Done. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  16:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * PMLA in your refs stands for what?
 * Modern Language Association. Already linked. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  16:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Make sure that you aren't listing secondary sources that aren't listed in the footnotes. If they aren't used in the footnotes, they should be listed in the external links or further reading. I didn't read everything with this in mind, but I did notice the IMDb listing but a quick look didn't show it up in the footnotes.
 * --Xover (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a nice touch, double check that a lot of the journals don't have articles. For instance, Speculum does, Speculum (journal).
 * Meldshal42 et al. had already gotten all but one. --Xover (talk) 22:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 12:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good and seems pretty close to FAC ready, here are some nitpicks to hopefully improve it a bit Done. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the lead, real persons are named inconsistently - most are first and last name at first mention, such as William Shakespeare, but some are just the last name. i.e. Garrick and Gielgud. I knew who these people were, but not everyone will, and I think it would be better to be consistent and use both names on first mention throughout the article.
 * Meldshal42 et al. had already gotten most of them. --Xover (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I think the direct quotes in the lead need refs per WP:LEAD The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. and WP:CITE You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... I note this is a problem throughout the article - text from the play is not consistently referenced, but it should be (despite the fact that some of it is very well known, like "star-crossed lovers"). For example at the start of the Synopsis section there is this uncited quote: "Two Households, both alike in dignity ..." —Chorus, but in the Time section, the text box has a cite "These times of woe afford no time to woo." —Paris (Romeo and Juliet: III.iv.8–9).
 * All direct quotes from the play are now cited, and use ref tags for consistency. --Xover (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that the Notes section has this All references to Romeo and Juliet, unless otherwise specified, are taken from the Arden Shakespeare second edition (Gibbons, 1980) based on the Q1 test [text?] of 1599, with elements from Q2 of 1597. Under their referencing system, which uses Roman numerals, II.ii.33 means act II (two), scene ii (two), line 33. Where text refers to other play sources, the source is indicated. which also seems to imply all quotes from the play should be cited. There seems to be a typo in this too (test for text)
 * --Xover (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I note Hamlet is the only Shakespeare play FA. It does not have a character list section in it at all. I also note that WikiProject_Shakespeare places the characters section after sections on Sources and on Date and Text. As I was reading this, going from a well-written lead to a list of characters stopped me cold. I would move the characters section elsewhere in the article.
 * ❌ Hmm. I see the problem, and agree the Character list is awkward and somewhat offputting where it is (right after the Lead); but I also think the only sane place for it is right before the Synopsis, and further that the Synopsis needs to be the first other section after the Lead. IOW it's not something I think we should jump in and change right now. But it seems there's need for a further round of Talk page discussions about the standard structure for play articles. --Xover (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unclear transition - could these two sentences be rewritten "The goodly History of the true and constant love of Rhomeo and Julietta" retells in prose a story by William Painter, with which Shakespeare may have been familiar. It was published in a collection of Italian tales entitled Palace of Pleasure in 1582.[2]
 * Rewrote the relevant bit, re-ref'ed it to Arden, and fixed the year of publication for Palace of Pleasure. --Xover (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unclear sentence: Shakespeare saves his prose style most often for the common people in the play, though [he uses it?] at times for other characters, such as Mercutio.[35]
 * Already fixed in the article (by someone else). --Xover (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Refs should be in numerical order - so change Romeo speaks of a foreboding he feels in the stars' movements early in the play, and when he learns of Juliet's death, he defies the stars' course for him.[56][44] There may be more examples of this.
 * I just checked and all refs are in numerical order now. --Xover (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Images of artworks are inconsistent as to whether or not the artist is identified.
 * All paintings now identify the artist. --Xover (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Awkward For example, Romeo and Juliet are mentioned in a song by Sublime titled Romeo, which portrays the Montague as a modern character pining for love in a modern way. "The Montague"?? The whole section on this song seemed a bit forced to me.
 * Removed the whole sentence. It seemed malapropos to me. If we need to expand upon the point, surely a better example can be found. --Xover (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add dates to All theatres were closed down by the puritan government during the Commonwealth. to provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR
 * This was already fixed in the article. --Xover (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last word is odd Cushman's success broke the Garrick tradition and paved the way for later plays.[82] perhaps versions or stagings or interpretations?
 * Substituted “performances” for “plays” and someone had already expanded the sentence to make its meaning clearer. --Xover (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a ref In 1895, actor Forbes-Robertson took over for Irving, and laid the groundwork for a more natural portrayal of Shakespeare that remains popular today. Forbes-Robertson avoided the showiness of Irving and instead portrayed a down-to-earth Romeo, expressing the poetic dialogue as realistic prose and avoiding melodramatic flourish.
 * ❌ Anyone have a suitable source for this? --Xover (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole Edwin Booth paragraph needs to be tightened up. For example, something like  First, Edwin Booth chose the play to open his spectacular new Booth's Theatre on the southeast corner of Twenty-third Street at Sixth Avenue in New York City, with McVicker (soon to be his wife) getting top billing as Juliet (in the list of characters) . The sumptuous theatre that Booth built, ... (this sentence is a run on / snake).
 * Already fixed (by Meldeshal, I think) in article. --Xover (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Too short for its own paragraph The play found popularity throughout continental Europe, as well.[94] combine with preceding or perhaps expand it
 * I had no idea where the New Theatre was in In one of the most notable 20th-century performances, staged by John Gielgud at the New Theatre in 1935,..
 * Does this refer to a literal "new theatre"? -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  14:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It refers to New Theatre (London), which someone has linked already in the article. So…
 * --Xover (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Needs a ref There is also an anime adaption of the play, titled Romeo X Juliet, which follows the plot loosely and adds fantastical elements.
 * I have a ref for this here, but I can't find this line. Anyway, it's here: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=7087 -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  00:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The line in question was removed a while back. --Xover (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done some copy editing, but in the first line I removed "early". Is this supposed to mean early in Shakespeare's career or is it just supposed to be an adjective?  If it were the latter, then I would keep it the way it is now. -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  16:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "early" was supposed to mean early in his career. Should it be reinstated?Smatprt (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reinstated, in a different way. -- Meldshal  (§peak to me)  00:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit - I'm so excited to review this article! Ah, Romeo and Juliet. I'm going to do the review in pieces, starting with the images.


 * Image:Arthur Brooke Tragicall His.jpg - This image has no source information.
 * Uploaded larger version and sourced it. --Xover (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Ask Me No More.jpg - This image has no source information.
 * I uploaded a bigger version and updated the info template with source info etc. --Xover (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Romeo and juliet title page.jpg - This image has no source information.
 * I uploaded a new version of this and of Q1, and updated the info templates. --Xover (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Samuel Pepys.jpg - This image has no source information.
 * I uploaded a bigger version and updated the info template with source info etc. --Xover (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Richard Burbage Portrait at Dulwich Picture gallery.jpg - Link to source does not take us to image.
 * The Dulwich Gallery site is borked so I replaced this with one that has source info. --Xover (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Charlotte Cushman Susan Cushman Romeo Juliet 1846.jpg - This image has no source information.
 * The original uploader (DionysosProteus) has added source information to the image. --Xover (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:KasarvinaLifarRG2.jpg - This image has no source or author information.
 * This image was deleted from Commons, so that settles that. :-( --Xover (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead and Synopsis
 * The play has been highly praised by literary critics for its language and dramatic effect. - Unnecessary assive voice; "dramatic effect" is a bit vague
 * Recast in active voice. --Xover (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "dramatic effects" is still vague. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had another go at it. Better? --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Its influence is still seen today, with the two main characters being widely represented as archetypal young lovers. - wordy
 * ❌ I took a stab at this one, but I'm not happy with it. Not sure what to do about this one. Help? --Xover (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to: "Influential even today, the title characters are considered the epitome of the "young lovers" archetype." - If you don't like it, feel free to revert. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Romeo, for example, grows more adept at the sonnet form over time. - "over the course of the play", perhaps?
 * As suggested. --Xover (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Characters frequently compare love and death and allude to the role of fate. - Sentence is not integrated into the lead. Drop it or integrate it.
 * Dropped. --Xover (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since its original publication, Romeo and Juliet has been adapted numerous times in stage, film, musical and operatic forms. - Wordy
 * Brevified. --Xover (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does the lead mention only specific stage versions? Why not mention a film version or two? Or perhaps no specific versions should be mentioned at all since a list tends to develop?
 * ❌ The relevant bit doesn't really talk about the adaptations so much as the text and how it has been used and modified over the years. We could replace one of the mentioned stage adaptations with a, say, screen one that treats the text similarly, but I don't really see a great need for it. Details of other adaptations can be found in the relevant section in the article and any attempt to cover the gamut in the lede would only be listy. Unless someone wants to take a stab at it I suggest we leave it as it stands. --Xover (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just worried that the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article. Perhaps one sentence about film adaptations? Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added an opera, West Side Story, and Romeo + Juliet. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The caption for Hayez' painting has no date - dates help readers unfamiliar with the history of artistic styles.
 * Dated. --Xover (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The synopsis is wordy. Here is an example: ''The play begins with a street brawl between two families: the Montagues and the Capulets. The Prince of Verona, Escalus, intervenes with his men and declares that the heads of the two families will be held personally accountable for any further breach of the peace. Later, Count Paris, a young nobleman, talks to Lord Capulet about marrying his thirteen-year-old daughter Juliet. Capulet is wary of this offer, citing the girl's young age youth, but still invites him to try to attract Juliet's attention during a ball that the family is to hold that night. Juliet's mother tries to persuade her daughter to accept Paris' courtship during this ball, leading Juliet to say that although she will make an effort to love him, she will not express love if it is not there. In this scene Juliet's nurse is introduced as a talkative and humorous character, who raised Juliet from infancy.
 * I've pruned it as mercilessly as I can. The entirety of Act 2, for instance, is summarised in a single sentence. --Xover (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The synopsis has awkward sentences and some poor diction. Here is an example: Despite his promise to call for the head of the wrongdoers, the Prince merely exiles Romeo from Verona, reasoning that Tybalt first killed Mercutio, and that Romeo merely carried out a just punishment of death to Tybalt, although without legal authority.
 * I've tweaked the ones I found while pruning, so it should be in somewhat better shape now. --Xover (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll just keep adding as I go. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Date and text
 * Shakespeare follows the poem closely[4] but adds extra detail to both major and minor characters, in particular the Nurse and Mercutio. In 1567 William Painter published a collection of Italian tales titled Palace of Pleasure - Some transition between these two sentences would be good.
 * I shuffled things around to make the transition a little smoother. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Italian tales were very popular among theatre patrons. - Patrons or theatre-goers?
 * Theatre-goers. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Critics of the day even complained of how often Italian tales were borrowed to please crowds. Shakespeare took advantage of their popularity, as seen in his writing of both All's Well That Ends Well and Measure for Measure (both from Italian tales) and Romeo and Juliet.  - wordy
 * Sorted in the general reshuffle. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Although nothing is known of the repertory of these troupes, it is possible that they performed some version of the story - repertoire?
 * Repertoire. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Da Porto is probably also the source of the tradition that Romeo and Juliet is based on a true story. - awkward wording
 * Reworded. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still awkward. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had another go at it. Any better? --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The names of the families (in Italian, the Montecchi and Capelletti) were actual 13th century political factions. - Italian names have already been mentioned
 * Moved the remaining bits to a parenthetical on the first mention and ditched the later occurence. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I see why the antiquity bit is mentioned later in the "Sources" section, but I'm wondering if it shouldn't come earlier. It is a broad statement and it seems like we are going back in time over the course of the sectoin, which is a bit awkward.
 * ❌ Not sure what to do about this. The section starts with Romeo and Juliet and works itself backwards. To change that we'd need to rewrite the whole thing. Opinions? --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder if an "older to newer" model might work better. I'm not sure, though. It would entail an entire rewrite of the section. Sometimes one doesn't know until one tries. Sorry I can't be more certain. I just found the current version a bit awkward. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a go at rewriting it to be in chronological order. cf. the Talk page. --Xover (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Modern versions considering several of the Folios and Quartos began printing with Nicholas Rowe's 1709 edition, followed by Alexander Pope's 1723 version.  - unclear
 * Clarified. --Xover (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will keep adding. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Analysis and criticism
 * The two images in the "Analysis and criticsm" section need dates.
 * Dated. --Xover (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Though critics have picked apart many weak points in Romeo and Juliet since the play's first writing, it is still regarded by most as one of Shakespeare's better plays - "picked apart" sounds colloquial
 * Smatprt rephrased it. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Among the most prevalent debates in the critical of the play regards Shakespeare's intent. - "criticism", right? also, just awkward in general
 * See below. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Was the play intended to be a story of two young lovers' struggle against fate and fortune, or was it a commentary on the foolishness of unbridled passion and the ultimate tragedy to which it will inevitably lead? Perhaps it was intended to show how two young lovers become instruments in the hands of fate or providence in uniting two warring families. - Overly dramatic and why the question format?
 * See below. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See below. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholars have yet to agree on what the play is really about after centuries of analysis, though recently several have argued that it is a combination of all three. - This is somewhat silly, of course, since they will never agree and the play is not just about one thing. Please reword.
 * I've moved this to the article's Talk page and we're discussing how to deal with it there. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * cf. Talk page. Consensus seems to be to just leave this bit out. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The nineteenth century centred on debates regarding the moral message of the play. David Garrick created a version of the play which excluded Rosaline, as Romeo's abandonment of her for Juliet was seen as reckless love at the time. - But Garrick was an eighteenth-century actor and playwright
 * Reworded to extend the indicated period back another half a century to cover Garrick (and Dibdin for that matter). --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actor and playwright David Garrick's 1848 adaptation excluded Rosaline - Garrick was dead in 1848 - are we sure this isn't 1748? Awadewit (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh. Fixed. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Publisher Nicholas Rowe was the first known critic to ponder the theme of the play, which he saw as being the punishment of the two families for their unreasonable quarrelling. - wordy
 * Pruned. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Critics of the time also debated whether Friar Laurence was actually Shakespeare's direct spokesman in his frequent warnings to the two lovers regarding their hastiness. - awkward syntax
 * Treated it as wordy and pruned it, which I think lessened the awkwardness of the syntax. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The phrase "at the time" appears far too frequently in the "Critical history" section.
 * … the time now appears only twice in the entire article (was only once but I reinstated one where it was appropriate). --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As the twentieth century came, these arguments were disputed by the likes of Richard Green Moulton, who argued that accident, and not some character flaw, led to the lovers' deaths. - wordy
 * Split, and pruned. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Later in the twentieth century, criticism divided in the several ways described below in the Interpretations section. - summarize or cut this sentence
 * Dropped. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare shows his dramatic skill freely in Romeo and Juliet - "shows his skill freely"? What does this mean? In other plays, he refrained from showing his skill?
 * Rephrased. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * providing intense moments of shift between comedy and tragedy - Wordy and awkward
 * Rephrased. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now it is a sentence fragment. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Had another go. Any better? --Xover (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Still, the fact that Romeo is banished, rather than executed, offers a hope that things will work out. - "things"? Perhaps we could be a bit more specific.
 * This was already fixed in the article, but I further tweaked this bit for good measure. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This only makes it all the more tragic when everything falls apart in the end. - Too vague
 * Rephrased. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Shakespeare also uses subplots to offer a clearer view of the actions of the main characters, and provide an axis around which the main plot turns. - The axis part is particularly unclear. The examples don't make this clear, either. What is meant here?
 * This was also already fixed in the article. --Xover (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More coming. Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Themes and motifs
 * In fact, the characters in it have become emblems of all who die young for their lovers. - Eek - can we word this better?
 * Recast. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Juliet, however, makes it clear that she is interested in Romeo by playing along with his metaphor. - Language just seems like a TV show in this section - "interested", "playing along" - can we make it a bit more sophisticated?
 * Recast. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Later, in the balcony scene, Shakespeare has Romeo overhear Juliet's declaration of love for him. In Brooke's version of the story, her declaration is done in her bedroom, alone. By bringing Romeo into the scene to eavesdrop, Shakespeare breaks from the normal sequence of courtship. - wordy
 * Tweaked and pruned.. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could still be better. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually, a woman was required to play hard to get, to be sure that her suitor was sincere.'' - "hard to get" is colloquial
 * Already fixed in the article. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * John W. Draper, another scholar of the fate persuasion - What? "fate persuasion"?
 * Already fixed in the article. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Still needs to be reworded with a word like "argues" instead of "believes". Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence is actually clear without that bit, so I simply removed it. --Xover (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interpreting the text in the light of the Elizabethan science of humourism reduces the amount of plot attributed to chance by modern audiences. - "science of humourism" - This wasn't a science at all - how about "theory of the four humours"?
 * Tweaked. Twice. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The light theme was initially taken to be "symbolic of the natural beauty of young love", an idea beginning in Caroline Spurgeon's work Shakespeare's Imagery and What It Tells Us, although the perceived meaning has since its publication branched in several directions - awkward wording
 * Rephrased. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For instance, when Romeo attempts to swear his love to Juliet by the moon, Juliet tells him not to, as it is known to be inconstant over time, and she does not desire this of him - Stilted
 * Recast to use direct quote; the original is short and to the point. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From the very beginning, the lovers are designated as "star-cross'd"[1] referring to an astrologic belief which is heavily connected to time - "heavily connected" is awkward - what about "associated with time"?
 * As suggested. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A "haste theme" can be considered as fundamental to the play - very awkward
 * Rephrased. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Time is heavily connected to the theme of light and dark as well. - "heavily connected" is awkward
 * Already fixed in the article, and rephrased for good measure. --Xover (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The play is said in the Prologue to be about two hours long, creating a problem for any playwright wishing to express longer amounts of time - Eh? Couldn't the playwright just change the prologue if he wanted to?
 * Unsourced (or rather, the cited source didn't support it) and probably OR so I deleted that sentence. --Xover (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

More coming. Awadewit (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Context and interpretation and Influences
 * The image in "Context and interpretation" doesn't have a date.
 * Dated. --Xover (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The first line of criticism argues that Romeo is in love with Rosaline and Juliet because she is the all-present, all-powerful mother which fills a void. - Who is the "she"?
 * Changed it to: … in love with Rosaline and Juliet because they represent the all-present, all-powerful mother which fills a void. --Xover (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another theory argues that the feud between the families provides a source of phallic expression for the male Capulets and Montagues. This sets up a system where patriarchal order is in power. When the sons are married, rather than focusing on the wife, they are still owed an obligation to their father through the feud. - Eh? This doesn't sound quite right for psychoanalytic criticism. I'm sensing that the writers might have had a hard time understanding this material and the paraphrasing might have lost something.


 * They take into account the fact that the play is written during a time when the patriarchal order was being challenged by several forces, most notably the rise of Puritanism. - How does Puritanism work in the play? This is confusing.


 * Mercutio's friendship with Romeo, for example, leads to several friendly conversations, including ones on the subject of Romeo's phallus. - What? This doesn't seem right at all. It is hard to turn queery theory into readable prose, but this doesn't do it justice, I don't think.


 * What about historicist interpretations?


 * The play directly influenced several literary works, both in Shakespeare's own day through the works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher,[74] and later works such as those of Charles Dickens. - Please explain in more detail.


 * The influence of the play on subsequent literature seems like it could be expanded.

Last bit coming. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Performances and adaptations
 * The Pepys quote is mentioned both in the "Critical reception" and the "Restoratioo and 18th-century theatre" sections. Choose one place.
 * Nuked the latter. --Xover (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The adaptations tend to become a little listy. I never know what to suggest for this problem. I just know that I want to stop reading because the article turns into a list. :)
 * For what it's worth, my solution to this problem (which I've never thoroughly succeeded at) is to demand that we find something interesting to say about any performance that we mention. ;-)  AndyJones (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Other
 * Not all of the footnotes use the same style. Some use commas and some use colons. Some have periods at the end and some do not.
 * All the shortrefs/notes now use consistent formatting. All notes are terminated by a full stop, and multiple citations are separated using a semicolon. All shortrefs now use the format &lt;ref&gt;Last (year: pages).&lt;/ref&gt;; except citations to the text of the play which use &lt;ref&gt;Romeo and Juliet, Act.Scene.Line.&lt;/ref&gt;. --Xover (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Texts of Romeo and Juliet" has only part of the ISBN in the second column. It looks a bit weird.
 * I don't know who thought a multi-column layout would be a good idea for primary/secondary sources sections, but those were bound to create Issues™ so I nuked it. Was only set with Firefox specific CSS rules and so wouldn't show up on other browsers anyway. --Xover (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone needs to go through the "Secondary sources" and check them very carefully. I see lots of little anomalies.
 * Ok, I went over all the secondary sources and made sure they follow a consistent format; fixed author names; fixed book/article titles; fixed years of publication; fixed publisher/location; fixed page numbers; added page numbers for journal articles and chapters in compilations; added ISSN/ISBN/DOI where one could be found (reverse-engineering/reconstructing DOIs from JSTOR internal IDs is… not a lot of fun); etc. Some of these were in pretty bad shape, but at least all the obvious stuff should be taken care of now. I did not go through the sources to see whether they're appropriate for the article text they're supporting since I have access to only a fraction of these sources. --Xover (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still see some anomalies - ISBNs aren't formatted the same way, publication information is given differently, etc. Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I think I must have gone blind: I can't tell what you're looking at there. Is it because we cite books, journals, multi-volume books, and essay collections (all of which have slightly different forms in the references)? Or missing place of publication (I've added the location for all the ones where the information was available)? Missing ISBNs (ditto)? Could you give me a couple of specific examples to help me along here? (I de-hyphenated the ISBNs and ISSNs so they'd be consistently formatted) --Xover (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * MOS
 * Standardize centuries = sometimes the article uses spelled out centuries and sometimes the article uses numbers (i.e. "eighteenth century" vs. "18th century").
 * Changed all instances to use numerical centuries. --Xover (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Check dashes. I fixed some as I was going along, but they are worth a look.
 * All dashes standardised per WP:DASH—preferring unspaced em-dashes for disjunctions and all ranges converted to unspaced en dashes. --Xover (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One date style - linked or unlinked - needs to be chosen for the article.
 * I went through it and de-linked all the dates still linked, including in the references, and fixed some dead links (some of which I re-cited, some I deleted because they weren't needed). --Xover (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSNUM
 * I found a single instance of a year range given as 1592–3 rather than 1592–93, but other than that all usages relevant to WP:MOSNUM seem to be in order. Was there anything in particular you were thinking of here? --Xover (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There were some spelled-out numbers in the article that I thought should be probably be numerals. Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Xover (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some apostrophe "s"'s are included inside links and some are not. Choose a style and stick with it.
 * The MOS recommends keeping them inside, so I changed all the others in the article to that form. --Xover (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)