Wikipedia:Peer review/William Shakespeare/archive1

William Shakespeare edit

I understand that this article may not be ready yet for featured article status. A couple of weeks ago this article has gone on a massive diet. The change is somewhat controversial; there're some like me who feel that the change has been too concise and drastic. (A pre-edited version is here [1]. Immediate post-edition version by User:Iago Dali is here [2]. User Iago Dali has since gone on to use the same treatment on many other literary articles) Since then it has gained back a few pounds :-), mainly worked back by User:The Singing Badger and User:Alabamaboy. However, in the early days it was still too concise for me, and I make a few noises about it being too dumbed-down; happily (to me) this article has began to put on more weight than previously. It is agreed on the talk page to bring it here to see which direction this article can move so as to gain FAC status. (Particularly, if there's anything in the pre-edited state at [1] that needs to be brought back.)

Also, if possible, please comment on the treatment used by User Iago Dali, since he has applied this "slimming" treatment to many literary articles, like Hermann Melville, Anton Chekhov, Charles Dickens (some of which are partially reverted). It's a matter of some concern as he does not seem to be open to criticism, insisting that his edits are truly for the better.Mandel 03:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of the article is too much of a list. Deryc k C. 08:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the latter half of the article is too much of a list. The problem, though, is that the article would be massively long if we included something on all of the plays and associated works. Any thoughts on how to get around this? (And, for what it's worth, this was a problem of the original article [3] and the current version.) I also think the following sections of the article need to be expanded: The sonnets section, other poems section, and the style section. I'd also like to see a section on his contributions to the English language (such as the large number of sayings he coined). I also wonder if the article needs any sections on the Elizabethan era and the Elizabethan theatre (any thoughts on this). I also hope that this peer review focuses on this article and doesn't turn into a debate on Iago Dali. That is a subject for a discussion at another location.--Alabamaboy 16:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- The peer review must include something about Iago Dali, since it's his contributions Alabamaboy based his rewrites on. Unless one finds what Iago does unalarming, we must have some consensus about what to do when Iago goes on his "slimming" ways. There's no guarantee he'll not put the Shakespeare article on diet again.
- How long is too long? Mandel 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those rewrites aren't mine alone. The Singing Badger and other editors have joined in on the work. A peer review is to discuss the current article and see ways in which it can be improved. It is not to debate another user. Besides, the differences between the original article and the current article are not that great. The Singing Badger, myself, and others added back a lot of the info Iago cut and added in a new section and info that had previously been missing (such as anything on Shakespeare's poetry). Anyway, let's keep this discussion on focus to improve the article.--Alabamaboy 17:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking them to comment on Iago as an editor, I'm asking them to comment on Iago's contributions in the Shakespeare article. Besides, if Iago's contributions hamper the article's FAC status, then it is invariably tie up with the peer review. Mandel 17:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which of Iago's edits do you want undone? We've already undone a number of them (see comment below) while trying to keep the idea of focusing the article better. At this point, the article is very different from what Iago did and is actually closer to the original article, although its much more focused and has a lot of info that wasn't in the original version. IMHO, reverting the article is not an option. There are also comments from other editors that the article is now much better than before. But if there are specific parts of Iago's cuts that you want reinserted, let us know and we'll try to add that info in. But we need specifics to do this. --Alabamaboy 12:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a little more like a request for comment instead of a peer review. For the record, IMHO the editing was much too harsh and probably should have been reverted. InvictaHOG 04:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iago did indeed edit too much. That's why myself and other editors reinserted much of the missing info while keeping some of the streamlining of the article, breaking sections that were too large into their own articles, and also adding a lot of new information. Other editors have commented that while they also felt Iago did too much cutting, the article is now much better b/c of the attention given to it. If I'd had my preference, Iago would have gone about his edits in a different way (I raised some of these issues on his talk page). The point of this request, though, is to improve the article further. --Alabamaboy 12:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]