Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Characters of Shakespear's Plays/1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Concerns not satisfactorily addressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The article is not concise, with almost 18,000 words of text. There is no post-2008 information. The citations rely upon the book that the article is about, instead of secondary sources. There are a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the article ended up being very long. But I disagree with one assertion. The citations do include extensive quotations from the book. But everything, or nearly everything, is fully backed up by secondary sources. If in a couple of cases, that was overlooked, please point out those cases, and they could probably be fixed.--Alan W (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- For example, in Falstaff (Henry IV and The Merry Wives of Windsor), yes, all the quotations have numerous footnotes citing the primary source. But any assertions about the meaning of that source are backed up by citations of Bloom, Kinnaird, and Eastman.--Alan W (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- As for the size of the article, according to Wikipedia:Article size: "There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion: an article should have clear scope, be well organized, stay on topic, and have a good narrative flow." The article, in my opinion, does meet those criteria. --Alan W (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.