Talk:Characters of Shakespear's Plays/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A very well written and suitably broad article. I'll add detailed comments below in a little while. --Xover (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Below are some suggestions for how to further improve the article. Note that I have not checked the citations.

General

• While the article is scrupulous about keeping straight whether it is referring to a character, a play, or an essay (e.g. Othello vs. Othello vs. "Othello"), this is quite hard to keep straight for the reader. I would suggest trying to avoid referring to the chapter titles by name in favour of phrasing such as “…the essay on Othello”. It'll be a bit tedious and repetitive, but I think it'll lessen the burden on the reader.
• Several places in the article you use “within” to mean “in”. The former connotes “inside” (vs. “outside”) with a much stronger emphasis than is merited to indicate the particular essay that addresses the point in question. I would generally suggest you just use “in” instead. I've noted a couple specific instances below, but it's probably more efficient if you just do a search for the word and replace as you think appropriate.
• There are several quite long runs of quotes that are presented inline. Quotes longer than a sentence or two should be given as blockquotes for clarity.
• There are several places in the article where it's not made clear that the “speaker” is Hazlitt. It is inferable from context, but can get a little confusing at times. I would suggest giving it a read-through with an eye to finding these and inserting stuff like “Hazlitt argued” or “In Hazlitt's view”, so it's clear we're explaining Hazlitt's position and not making statements of fact.
• The order of the sections on Coriolanus, Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth could stand some consideration. One is the first essay on a tragedy, one is Hazlitt's favourite, and one stands out as groundbreaking. Hamlet actually seems misplaced in there; and Lear and Macbeth made me pause and wonder why they hadn't appeared earlier in the article.
• The article uses a lot of direct quotes, which tends to give it the feel of an essay itself. I'm quite fond of copious quotes myself, but I would suggest using them more as “illustrations” supplementing an explanation of their contents and interpretation in normal prose. Letting Hazlitt speak for himself to this extent starts running close to that uncomfortable gray area near WP:OR and WP:RS.
• There is a tendency to use monster-length sentences. These should probably be broken up, ruthlessly. Except as noted below, these are not critical for GAC; but should probably be addressed before going to FAC.
• I get the feeling that this article is broad rather than comprehensive, and that there is more that can beneficially be said. However, since the criteria at GAC is precisely broad and not comprehensive, that's entirely as it should be. :-)
• Most of the comments below are about copy-editing. While generally very well written, I would recommend some serious copy-editing to address issues like overlong sentences and needlessly complicated language.

• 1. - I think I cleared up any ambiguity about the use of names. I added "character" to most instances of a use of character. I also added "essay" and followed the title in quotes and removed all instances of "essay on play" (replacing them with "essay 'play'"). 2. I think I fixed most instances. 3. I dropped a mention about possible MoS problems with that. 4. I think I've clarified many instances of this. 5. Right now it is alphabetized because it was easier for me to find the articles. They can be switched - possibly to follow the order Hazlitt published them. 6. All direct quotes are used by the critics that either preceded the quote or followed the quote. All arguments are followed as presented in secondary sources. I never introduce an idea from a primary source or a non-directly related source unless a critic has done so first (see the Background section of Christopher Smart's asylum confinement for an example of this - it follows Keymer's argument and use of the sources). 7. The discussion on Antony and Cleopatra could probably be made into its own section along with an addition of a discussion on Falstaff (the book sources only mention it in general terms or in passing). This history plays also lack major representation. I have to get a chance to go through journal articles before I can get enough information to build three or four paragraphs on them, since the ones with sections right now tend to be the ones most critics focus on. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

 Done

• The images check out for obvious problems such as source and license. No fair-use images, and several of the images are featured.
• The “portrait” layout pictures should have the “upright” parameter applied, to make the sizing work also for “landscape” layout pictures (otherwise, when the portrait images are “just right” the landscape ones will be too small to make out).
• The Others section is somewhat drowning in images. There are fairly large blocks of text before and, especially, after it; which makes this section look a bit overwhelmed. It would probably be a good idea to spread these out a little.
• The Critical response section could do with some images. Perhaps there are pictures available of one of the critics that are quoted?

• Fixes - I could not figure out the code for the portrait and landscaping that you were suggesting above. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, just adding "|upright" among the other image parameters ("|thumb", "|right", etc.) should do it. The short version is that it makes those images smaller (by about 20%); but, more relevant, it makes the images that are taller than wide ("portrait" layout) be, relatively speaking, the same size as those images that are wider than they are tall ("landscape" layout). Without it the images have different relative sizes. Anyways, I've added it in this diff—along with blowing up the lead picture a bit—but do feel free to revert if you don't like it.
  Anyways, the article's use of pictures looks much more balanced now. Nice work. --Xover (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede

 Done

• Characters of Shakespear's Plays is an 1817 collection of 34 essays by William Hazlitt. — This is needlessly ambiguous. I would suggest recasting along the lines of “…is a collection of 34 essays by William Hazlitt published in 1817.”, which avoids the mental grouping “1817 collection” and has the happy side-effect of putting greater distance between the two numbers.
• Collections of reviews were rare at the time, and Hazlitt's publication of the work with his name on the title page … — I don't quite get what the two clauses of this sentence have to do with one another. Is it trying to say something like “they were rare, but since it was by Hazlitt it sold anyway”?
• …Hazlitt's publication of the work with his name on the title page suggests Hazlitt's popularity before publication. — While I understand what is meant by this, it takes a little cognitive juggling to get there. Perhaps it can be recast to say that his name was a selling point directly?
• The second edition was not as fortunate as the first; Hazlitt blamed its failure on a bad review by the politically motivated Quarterly Review. — While these two clauses are entirely logical and consistent (so I gather from the article text), there isn't any indication here as to what the relationship between them are. Is it “, but Hazlitt blamed”? “, and Hazlitt blamed”? Provided the sources actually support that, I think it would be better here (in the lede) to simply say that it didn't sell as well because of the review, and leave Hazlitt's complaint of it to the relevant section of the article. Alternately, you could simply replace the semicolon with a full stop: the flow would be a little abrupt and choppy, but you'd avoid the awkward transition between the two clauses.
• …that was established by such earlier critics as Samuel Johnson. — moving the “such” after “critics” seems to flow better to me.
• Following Charles Lamb, Hazlitt argues … — The word following, here, connotes a relationship along the lines of apprenticeship for me (which I'm assuming is wrong). Perhaps “Taking his lead from” or “Agreeing with” or some such would work better?
• … argues for the understanding of characters as entities within the plays instead of generic types. — This isn't really clear to me here, and doesn't become clear to me while reading the article. Is the argument between the character as a (fictional) human being (with depth and dimension) and the character as a generic Archetype? The terminology used to describe this seems to either be a somewhat vague lay explanation, or some specialist terminology that is never explained to the reader. Is there some way these concepts can be made clearer?
• Of the plays, Hazlitt places particular emphasis on Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, and Othello, declaring them the four most important Shakespeare tragedies. — Perhaps a semicolon before the last clause? And the first clause can be deleted without affecting meaning or readability. Unless the phrasing is intended to suggest that Hazlitt covers the poems, and that it is relevant to distinguish between what he emphasized among those versus the plays, that the emphasised plays represent a subset of the plays is a given.
• … Shakespeare uses passion to drive characters to tragic moment … — I don't understand what “drive to tragic moment” means. Is there an article missing? A plural suffix?
• … Shakespeare uses passion to drive characters to tragic moment and revealing aspects about humanity as he does. — The tenses seem odd here. Should “revealing” perhaps be “to reveal” or “reveals”?
• Many of his essays contain Hazlitt's groundbreaking analysis of various plays. — Do some of them not contain Hazlitt's analysis? Or is it merely not groundbreaking in some of them? Perhaps “Many of his essays contain analysis that was groundbreaking.”?
• Within "Coriolanus"… — “In” would be perfectly adequate here. “Within” seems to emphasise “inside” far more than is merited.
• …he argues against the idea that poetry should be used to shape humanity, as such an attribute can only bring about greater problems. — I'm not sure something shaping humanity and an attribute of humanity are equivalent concepts. Can perhaps “such an attribute” simply be replaced by “it”?
• …even characters traditionally seen as base or weak should be acknowledged as having a just cause. — Is the point regarding their cause, or should the sentence end with something like “…as having redeeming qualities”? Perhaps it's my temporally provincial eyes, but there doesn't appear to be sufficient contrast between “base or weak” and “just cause” to explain why this is called out.
• Within "King Lear", — Ditto of the above (“within” vs. “in”).
• … tragedy merges the strengths and weaknesses of the characters in order to be successful… — Unclear: is it the tragedy or the character that uses those to be successful?
• …an individual's strength … used against them… — Since we're giving Othello as the single example here, using “him” instead of the artificially gender-neutral and plural “them” might be better.

• Fixes - I took some of the suggestions and went further on others. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

 Done

• Hazlitt was a writer of theatrical reviews starting in 1813. — Wouldn't it be simpler to just say he started writing theatrical reviews in 1813? That it was his occupation can be left implicit.
• Before it was printed, the book was bought by Hazlitt's friend… — It seem a little odd that it's the book that's performing the action in this sentence. Perhaps recast such that Hazlitt's friend buys, rather then the book being bought?
• A notice ran in the Edinburgh Review along with the future book being promoted by word of mouth during the spring of 1817. — This reads a bit awkward. Perhaps recast so the book is promoted by a notice in the Review as well as word of mouth? As it stands it doesn't quite connect the notice and the word of mouth.
• …the future book… — It's not necessary to specify that the book is “future” here; it's clear from the context. Rather, if left in it may suggest it's referring to a sequel or something.
• Charles and James Ollier — Perhaps move these two earlier in the sentence, or explain why there is a distinction between them and Rowland Hunter? Did the latter publish and the former sell it? The sentence does not make this clear above giving the titles for these people.
• The works openly state their authorship by Hazlitt, which verifies his popularity as a theatre critic at the time. — Why would he not “openly state” his authorship? Unless there is a popular theory that Edward de Vere wrote Hazlitt's essays—:-)—this doesn't appear to make sense. Was there a tradition of publishing such works anonymously? Under a pen name? Also, “verifies” just sounds like the author trying to sneak WP:OR past: would perhaps “suggests” or “indicates” or “illustrates” be better options? Incidentally, I have a rule of thumb that says any time an article contains the word “stated”, warning bells should be going off. Call it environmentally damaged from popculture articles or something, but unless the word is in the sense “a (nation) state” or in the form “a statement”, I just shudder whenever I see it.
• The work was to become so successful… — No need for the future tense here: “The work was so successful…”
• The work was to become so successful that a second edition was soon called for while it was rare for critical reviews to be published as books. — “While” does not really work to connect the two clauses here: it reads more like contrastive (“but”) than temporal (“during”). Perhaps replace it with “at a time when”?
• Is there a comma missing after Examiner in the last sentence of this section?

• Fixes - Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Essays

 Done

• Hazlitt was connected to theatre and apprenticed in theatre criticism by attending plays throughout his life. — This sentence is really awkward and jumping all over the place. Unfortunately I don't have any real ideas for how to improve it. Maybe the problem is that it tries to do too many things at once, and would benefit from simply splitting it into two or even three separate sentences?
• In Characters of Shakespear's Plays, he sought to describe his view of Shakespeare that was grounded in the interpretation of characters by actors, particularly Edmund Kean, along with the philosophy of play reading held by Charles Lamb. — The “play reading” is expanded on in the next sentence, but the view of Shakespeare is crammed into this sentence directly. Perhaps rip out the “that was grounded in…” bit and instead explain it in a following sentence? Perhaps even split the view of Shakespeare and the “play reading” into entirely separate sentences?
• Lamb argues… — This can with benefit be made past tense (“argued”).
• …dulls the characters until the audience is unable to perceive the true attributes of a character… — Two “characters” a bit close together. Replace the latter with “its”?
• … bring about the imagination. — Hmm. One brings about a ship, or a transition, or… Perhaps “grasp the imagination”, “tickle the imagination”, or some other such more idiomatic use?
• The problem with the theatre to Hazlitt… — “for Hazlitt”? “Hazlitt view the problem…”?
• the theatre itself and the audience that filled the theatre — Repetition of “theatre”. Replace the latter instance with “it”?
• Another problem is…” — Here you switch tense, so that this sentence seems to be the article's author speaking. I think using past tense in place of present tense would make it clear that it's Hazlitt speaking.
• August Wilhelm Schlegel's Lectures on Drama. — A brief indication of what this work is (its significance in the context) would be helpful to the reader not familiar with it.
• The essays are prefaced with a statement in which Hazlitt approved… — Here the tense switches from present (“are”) to past (“approved”). I'd suggest keeping the present tense and correct “approved” to “approves”.
• in terms of types instead of individuals — “as individuals”?
• he especially emphasizes the character within Shakespeare's dramas — Should character be plural?
• The last paragraph of this section is in present tense while the rest of it is in past tense. I don't consider that particularly a problem, but I imagine it will be brought up at FAC. You may want to consider whether and what to do about it before then.

• Fixed - Ottava Rima (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Coriolanus

 Done

• …Edmund Burke's Reflections… — This could use a brief explanation.
• As he was treating the work with such an analysis, he slowly became… — Is “as” here intended to convey time or causality? i.e. did he become a Whig because he treated the work with such an analysis, or while he treated the work &c.?
• the monarchial governmental form — This sounds really odd. Can it be recast? Perhaps simply “monarchy as a form of government”?
• keep up an imaginative continuity — Should this be “imaginary”? “Imaginative” seems a lot to ask of the people. :-)
• was not to be done — This reads like “But, alas, it was not to be.” Perhaps “should” would work better?
• continuity … be done — Is a continuity something one does?
• and this comes out in his essay about — “Comes out” feels a bit colloquial. Shines through? Is evident?
• Coriolanus responds to his banishment by society… — I would change that “by” to from for clarity, and to mirror the later “from” in the turnaround later in the sentence.
• … within the play… — That it happens within the play is clear since we're talking about one of its characters, so that bit can be simply dropped.
• As Hazlitt was to later write in his… — “As Hazlitt later wrote” is a simpler way of putting it.
• As Hazlitt was to later write … should be "delivered… — Is there an “it” missing before “should” here? And what does “it” refer to; the role, or some speech?
• best of prey — Whose typo is this? (i.e. should it be corrected or marked with {{sic}})?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamlet

 Done

• previous critics to Hazlitt claim — It is sufficient with “previous critics”; Hazlitt is called out both previous and immediately following this sentence, so it's clear from context.
• The essay also emphasizes Shakespeare's ability to evoke sympathy from the audience towards Hamlet within the play. — We don't really need to specify that it's within the play. “The essay also emphasizes Shakespeare's ability to evoke sympathy towards for Hamlet from the audience.
• The revisions between the two include adding in and an introductory section… — Is the “and” extraneous here?
• There is also an addition of Hazlitt describing…” — “where Hazlitt describes”?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

King Lear

 Done

• and the end results in chaos that results in both the good and the bad dying. — The end results? Should this be the ending? And the two “results” are confusing.

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Macbeth

 Done

• Lady Macbeth contrasts with Macbeth as she is firm in the actions as her husband reacted against the murder. — This sentence doesn't make sense. Should the last “as” be a “where(as)”?

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice

 Done

• Portrayals previous to Hazlitt's essay emphasized only the bad aspects of Shylock, and audiences applauded this depiction. — Which depiction; Hazlitt's or the previous?
• The immediate affect of Hazlitt's early argument in support of Kean's portrayal was… — Effect vs. affect?
• Other critics argue… — Switched tense again (from past to present).

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Othello

 Done

• The Othello essay is written with the intent to allow the audience to identify with the character Othello. — Apart form the awkward repetition of “Othello”, this statement of Hazlitt's intent in writing the essay makes me a little uncomfortable. Can it be phrased a way that preserves the meaning but doesn't bring to mind Wikipedia editors performing necromantic rituals and mind-reading? :-)
• Great tragedy, to Hazlitt, contains what Hazlitt calls… — The second “Hazlitt” should be “he”.
• The last paragraph of this section seems to have been insufficiently digested, or at least it doesn't flow well. I'm left with a feeling that the author is making a counter-argument to his sources (the last sentence). I think this would benefit from attacking it again with a clearer goal of what you want the paragraph to communicate; what is the point you're trying to get across here.

• Fixes. I tried reworking the final paragraph somewhat - it can be removed as it is a minor point. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, much better now. --Xover (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Tempest

 Done

• Caliban's cause is also just and the play involving this theme even in scenes that lack him as an active character — Is the “play” bit in the middle of that sentence a leftover from a previous reworking? I can't quite make out what this sentence is trying to say.
• Incidentally, that Hazlitt quote on Caliban and Ariel is splendid. I'd not even remotely considered that in this way before. Seeing that quote alone was worth the effort of reviewing this article. :-)

• Fixes. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FInally, kudos on an outstanding article. I'll be looking forward to seeing this at FAC in the not too distant future. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)