Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hamlet

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Hamlet[edit]

Check external links

This article is about one of the world's most famous plays. As Shakespeare said, it's just "words, words, words" but—as it's the result of much dedicated work by knowledgeable editors such as Wrad and AndyJones, and with Awadewit providing valuable reviews and copy-tasting—you should find them in a pleasing and coherent order. With the mass of available material, the great difficulty has not been to fill the page, but rather to keep the article to manageable proportions. Enjoy reading the article and I hope that you find things in it that you didn't know :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm a big contributor to this article and I think it meets the criteria. I'll be monitoring this page throughout the process to help fix whatever is pointed out that we might have missed. Thanks in advance! Wrad (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm also a major contributor to the article and I'm on hand to help out with any issues which arise. Also, in addition to the credits above, I'd add a tribute to the excellent work of DionysosProteus. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - After putting these poor editors through the wringer several times over, I'm happy to support this excellent article. Its research is impeccable, its content is clearly and coherently presented, and its writing is meticulous and brilliant. Users who come to this article will have found a real gem. Awadewit | talk 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I can't think of anything that's been missed. Incredibly thorough, and well-written to boot. If only the rest of our articles on Mr. Shakespeare's works receieved such attention. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful article, nothing seems to be missed, professional standard of writing and well presented, what more can you ask? Harland1 (t/c) 12:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As an ex-theatre and twice-over English major, I've read this play more times than I can count and even I learned something after reading this article. It is incredibly and meticulously well written and entirely comprehensive. Even the images are spectacular. This really sets the bar for theatre Featured Articles; I hope other Shakespeare plays *cough*Macbeth*cough* will follow in its footsteps! Fantastic and admirable work by all involved. María (habla conmigo) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Macbeth is my favorite Shakespeare tragedy. I agree. Wrad (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections concerning the play's sources and rhetorical devices informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details. It is beautifully written. Overall, this is an extremely impressive piece. It has my full support. -- twelsht (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Fine article. I thing though - link Elizbethean in the lead and once in the body. And feel free to delink Denmark, Japan and Australia; I thought it was mandatory to link countrieas :) indopug (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Why is talkies italicised?
  • Most film versions don't have a link to film itself (Oliver's, Hawke's, Gibson's).
  • Why is Denmark not linked in the lead (or later on as well)?
  • It wasn't linked in the lead but was further down. I've reversed this now so the link is on the first mention only.
  • "the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language"- shouldn't these be attributed to somebody (XYZ believes that Hamlet is...)? It is an opinion...
  • The sources for all these are already cited but I've moved the flags closer.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "puzzled over this delay" - what does that mean exactly? Was/is 3 hours too long for a play?
  • "Hamlet's sources probably include an..." - so Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's original? Shouldn't that be mentioned before?
  • Interesting point! The prose and the dramatic structure is Shakespeare's, based on plot elements from earlier works. This is mentioned in the lead, and has a whole section devoted to it elsewhere, so it's not buried. As this is not primarily what Hamlet is famous for, on balance, I think the weight and prominence is about right.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the links is not 100% (check the top of this page for checking links).
Indopug (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links—Let's not go overboard with links; is Denmark going to deepen the reader's understanding of the article? Is it an obscure place? Tony (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Further comments - Tending toward support but still a few niggles,

  • "and provided a storyline capable of seemingly endless adaptation." - POV. You've extrapolated your own conclusions from the fact that there are many adaptations> It reads more like gushing fan-boyism than encyclopedic.
  • Sorry about that. Replaced it with an almost identical quote from Arden. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "begin to view Hamlet as confusing and inconsistent" - is that Hamlet or Hamlet? Regardless, I suggest you search for the term "Hamlet" in the article one last time and fix any possible MoS errors.
  • It can apply equally to both but as the focus is mostly on the man it's probably best left as it is. We can add words to explain all this, of course, but I'm not sure that would add much to the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is ELECTRONOVISION written weird? What is it anyway?
  • I'll make it a link and provide more info at the other end. I'll report back tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade mark. It looks a bit better in SMALL CAPS than CAPS, though.--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Victorian, West German, Japanese. Delink the 2nd Oedipal.
  • Done. Not sure how much it adds though. De-linked numerous complexes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it necesary to mention why Gibson and Close were famous? The movies section is a little clutteres as it is.
  • I didn't write that but I guess it adds background and doesn't hurt.--ROGER DAVIES talk
  • FWIW, I'm in favour of keeping this in. It's the kind of thing that makes an article interesting and memorable, because it enables the reader to relate what she is learning about Hamlet to things she may already know about those films, or about that phase of Mel Gibson's career, etc. AndyJones (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As regards to my sources complaint in my previous review, I mentioned Hamlet's sources. My poblem was that as we are reading the Lead, we abruptly come across mention of Hamlet's sources. Not knowing much about the subject, I had no clue what you trying to convey. I suggest something like: "Shakespeare based Hamlet on earlier legends mostly of Indo-European source..." or something to that effect.
  • "the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language" - I'm not saying that these statements aren't cited; it would be better to move those flags back to after the full-stops. What I am saying is these statements are opinions; and they can applied to any of Shakespeare's works, Othello, Macbeth etc. Hence, the prose should read: "Literary critic John Doe believes that Hamlet is 'the greatest exhibition of his powers'." and so on. Even if it is backed by reference, it is an opinion, and the holder of that opinion should be named in the prose itself.
  • Are they opinions or statements of fact? They merely summarise what follows in the body of the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you make sure the images keep alternating from left to right as far as possible? Also, is there a free pic of Hamlet talking to the skull in his palm; it is the most iconic image of Hamlet for the common man?
  • I know. I love that one too but I couldn't find one. Sorry, --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indopug (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Weak oppose.[See my new opinion, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)] A great article, in need of just a little final polishing. I've given the first few sections a light copyediting, and I will do the same to the remainder when I have time, soon. I ask the nominator of the article to attend to two things, which I am not inclined to labour over myself:[reply]

  • Regularity of punctuation in citations (for example, presence or absence of a final full stop; exact position of that full stop); a full check of compliance with WP:CITE.
  • Correct use of the hard space ( ), as prescribed at WP:MOS for avoiding improper page breaks line breaks. [Sorry!–N]
(PS: This is not prescribed - MOS says "A spaced slash may be used" - and in any case, if used, introduces additional fiddliness in the form of hard spaces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
 Done Wrad (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argghhh, I meant line breaks. In fact, Wrad, there is more to do! And things like "pgs." meaning "pages" are an anomaly. Someone has to check these things systematically. :)
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then I guess I'll have to ask you to explain things better. I don't really understand anything you've said in these bullet points. Might as well be gibberish. I'm one of the 99.9% of Wikipedians who don't know much about MoS nitty-gritty :) . Wrad (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad, let's look at some of the "footnotes" together (not really footnotes, are they? Could equally be called "endnotes"):
  • Saxo and Hansen (1983, 176–25)
Um, what does the range "176–25" mean?
  • I'm damned if I know either :) could someone with access to Saxo fix this please?
  • Fixed it. The seven shouldn't be there. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saxo and Hansen (1983, 66–67)
That's better! The range makes sense here. But then the very next note:
  • Jenkins (1982, 82–5).
Riiight... seems to be OK. We'd need to remove that full stop, yes? The others didn't have that. And so for all the notes. They need to be consistent, at least. And then, the range is specified differently here. Earlier we had a range like this: 66–67. So this one should be 82–85, for consistency. That needs to be fixed throughout, also.
  • Britton (1995, 207—211)
That's an em dash; should be an en dash like the others. (See good explanation of their different roles at WP:MOS.)
The full stop? Why is the range not "249–250", like the preceding example?
  • [...] The New Cambridge series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare's plays (Irace 1998).
That's a complete sentence from the end of a note. As a sentence, it has a full stop. But look:
  • [... ] The whole conversation between Rozencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet concerning the touring players' departure from the city is at Hamlet "F1" 2.2.324–360
That's another sentence at the end of a note. Why is there no full stop? To stop or not to stop, that is the question. Suggestion: have a full stop at the end of every note. Quietus make.
  • Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 126–131).
  • Thompson & Taylor (2006a, 74).
Well? Ampersand ("&") or "and"? Choose, then act! (Let not this FAC now turn awry, / and lose the name of action.)
  • Ampersands to and, where appropriate. (I've been meaning to do this for weeks. Thanks for reminding us.) -ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See? Not rocket science. Consistency carries a great deal of weight.
The rest is silence. For now, anyway.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wrad (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When those things are duly done, and I've had a chance to make adjustments to punctuation and a couple of small matters of style ("en route" > "on the way", for walking to a bedchamber!), I'll be happy to give this article my full endorsement.:– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ("En route" arguably expresses better—by conveying a sense of time and distance—the considerable intervening action. But these are matters of taste and nuance, rather than right or wrong. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Incidentally, I've just gone through your earlier CE, very helpful. Thank you: ) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you're proposing a hard space in the middle of every page ref - like this (2006: 34) - these are (with the exception of the errant Saxo ref) all now duly done.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saxo ref is fixed now. Wrad (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the many hours you spent over the weekend at the Hamlet coalfield chipping away at dashes and spaces :) Is it now cured? Or does Hamlet still contain flaws fatal to your support of its candidacy? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, thanks for your note at my page. I am not proposing such a thing as "(2006: 34)" everywhere. "'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so," as Horatio has it. The hard spaces that we now have in the article are fine. Several editors have been chipping away at it the meantime, with skill and with the best intentions. I am not happy with all of these changes. May I presume to look over the whole thing one last time, and fix just the odd nuance? Of course it can all be altered again later. (I'm sorry: though I appreciate the old-world splendour of "believed written", I'm not sure that it touches the modern neocortex.) Trust me now: I'll get straight onto this, and then sign off on this... beauty of the wikiworld, the paragon of articles.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, 'tis accomplished. I stand by all my edits, except those that are foolish or wrong (all 0.0001% of them). See my new comment, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The formula "believed written" is a nuanced consensus solution to the contentious problem of dating Hamlet. Some editors wanted weasel words like "probably written" or "may have been written": others something much more unambiguous. If you can come up with something equally concise and equally neutral, I'd be pleased to hear it. Incidentally, despite its alleged olde-worlde-charm, the phrase "believed written" still generates 1,600 hits on Google. Parallel constructions - "believed lost", "believed killed" and "believed stolen" - generate 49,000, 46,000, and 15,000 hits respectively. Which suggests the construction is not as disconnected as you may think and further suggests it need not be dumbed down. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see we're back to "probably written". I'll change this to "almost certainly written" to reflect the lengthy discussions on the Hamlet page and at the Shakespeare Wikiproject page about degrees of probability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Almost certainly written" is a better solution. (I know all about "nuanced"! Do what you like with that.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll add it later, though it is precisely the same formula that was used to resolve another similar problem, and therefore also appears in par. four of the intro. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. This is a remarkably good article. It did need some fresh eyes on it, and it has now benefited from several pairs of those. My own eyes are red with tiredness, so if I have made any SILLY errors as I edited past midnight here in Australia, please fix them. There were errors of punctuation still to fix, and such errors as Tarquinus for Tarquinius, and a few dozen others. You might like to examine them closely before reverting!

I have no problem with the article as it is now improved. I commend it to editors here, and urge that it be promoted as a featured article without delay.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support, but there are still issues. Here are a few in the lead.
  • "Hamlet's uncle has stolen not only the throne but taken also Hamlet's mother"—The position of "also" doesn't work. Remove "but taken"?
  • Removed the not only but also completely. It reads better without this, I think.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I smell a rat here: "each has lines—and even scenes—missing from the others"—so each has scenes missing from the others? What's the "even" doing?
  • Occupying "entire"'s seat, who slipped into it a short while back :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too sharp a boundary in the semicolon, an opportunity for ellipsis missed, and possible overuse of commas: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge; and it ends, more than three hours later, with the fulfilment of that desire." --> "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends more than three hours later with the fulfilment of that desire.
  • This sentence has become steadily more intricate over the last twenty-four hours (see talk page). I've now recast it as: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with the fulfilment of his desire", which I hope satisfies everyone (though I'd prefer something crunchier, as I dislike the way the symmetry and cadence of the sentence is now lost at the end). --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the four hundred years that have since elapsed, it has been played by the greatest actors—and sometimes actresses—of each successive age". Remove "that have" and "elapsed"; the wording suggests that the whole cast is either male or female.
  • Cut this as suggested. The "it" ellipses "title role", which I've made more explicit. (There's a huge ref bang in the middle of the sentence, which makes it a devil to edit.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And at random before I stopped sampling below the lead:
  • MOS breach. This caption is just a nominal group, not a full sentence, and should have no final period: "A facsimile of Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, which contains the legend of Amleth".
  • Done this, and recast for tidyness where a sentence followed a fragment. (Incidentally, though this is really a discussion for another place, some MoS guidance over points and citations would be useful. Points after footnote fragment are redundant.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was also at this point that critics started to focus on Hamlet's delay as a character trait, rather than a plot device."—"Also" is idle, here. In fact, it's odd to refer to "By the 19th century" as a point. Hamlet's delay cannot be a trait itself; surely it results from a character trait.
  • Caption: "skill.(Artist ..."—missing space.
  • "highly-developed"—MOS breach; read up on hyphens. "Best known" needs a hyphen.
  • MOS: ellipsis dots need spacing (check the original punctuation after "thoughtful").
  • Done this. And changed "[...]" to " ..." throughout because the braces are another complication, are applied inconsistently, are visually disruptive, and are not MoS-mandated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 184–5: my pet hate. It's not mandatory, but a minimum of two closing digits is normal. Should be written into MOS.
  • I've put full ranges throughout. (And yes, I'll support its inclusion in MOS :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These issues, easily found, suggest the need for another good copy-editor who has the benefit of fresh eyes. Probably 40–60 minutes would make it perfect, and would be an enjoyable task for the right person. Well done, folks; it's going to be a spankingly good FA. Tony (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll probably get around to a close reading of the article later, but for now, could you check to make sure that the links under the External links section comply with WP:EL? Links to blogs, for example, are probably not necessary. BuddingJournalist 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a discussion about this earlier, and decided to keep the blog. It has incredibly high-quality, well-written analysis of performances of Hamlet. Since that decision, though, new people have come in. We can change if we want, but I'd like to keep it. The only one I have a bit of a problem with is Hamlet Regained, as it is a personal web site and has an unprofessional tone at times, though it does have many other stronger points. Wrad (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the user seems to be a spammer pure and simple. We can discuss with him if his behaviour becomes a problem. The site looks quite good, but I don't think that link is appropriate, really - in a featured article candidate we should be particularly choosy. I have moved it to Hamlet on screen, though, where it fits better. AndyJones (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Why is the first sentence of the article a double passive sentence ("believed to have been written")?
  • I wrote this as "believed written" and it has been "corrected" on numerous occasions by drive-by editors to the current form. I'll happily change it back but I doubt the change will survive long. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the subsection headings in "Context and interpretation" adjectives instead of nouns?
  • This could easily be fixed, but I'm curious to know why you don't like them as they are? AndyJones (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed it, but I don't consider it a big problem; although it could sound strange, when someone wants to refer to such a subsection ("read about it in the subsection 'Philosophical'"), because it is not a standalone word. – Ilse@ 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are types of context or interpretation and therefore ellipse the nouns in the section heading. The sub-sections refer to religious context not religion, philosophical interpretation not philosophy and so forth. I'd probably recast your note as "read about it in the #Philosophical and #Religious contexts subsections :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Hamlet 2000 poster.jpg does not contain information significant for the readers' understanding of the article that cannot be conveyed in words alone, its subject (the film) is not critically discussed in the article so the image is just for decoration, and the source is not mentioned on the image's description page; it fails WP:NFCC policy #8 and #10, and should therefore be removed from this article.
  • This may be an opportunity to use the Bernhardt image (see above). I had wondered about the Hawke image, myself. AndyJones (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the external links could be written in a consistent format.
– Ilse@ 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hamlet&oldid=1136097488"