Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Shakespeare authorship question

Shakespeare authorship question (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Shakespeare authorship question/archive1

Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Wikipedia's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Wikipedia articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article does not meet the listed criteria. The prose is pedestrian. It is certainly not 'engaging, even brilliant'. The article is not 'comprehensive'. It neglects major facts concerning the reasons why certain individuals have been proposed as authorship candidates. It is not particularly well-researched, for the same reason that it is not comprehensive. It is decidedly not neutral, and if it is accepted for featured article status it will be a triumph for outright censorship on Wikipedia since all editors other than those supporting the orthodox view of the authorship controversy were either discouraged from contributing to the article or outright banned by Wikipedia. It has been the subject of ongoing edit wars for four years, and is only recently 'stable' because editors who did not support the orthodox view were banned from editing. It is an overly lengthy treatment of the topic with an abundance of unnecessary footnotes, and its structure is illogical, as the historical section is in the middle of the article.72.234.212.189 (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this topic area has been the subject of a recent ArbCom case and that standard discretionary sanctions have been authorized. The IP-edit above amply illustrates why that was necessary, and I would urge everyone to not needlessly engage with the various drive-by commenters that have been an issue whenever this topic has been the subject of a community process in the past. --Xover (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, I wish to make clear right off the bat that FAC delegates will remove commentary by users or socks of users who were banned from this topic area. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to WP:WIAFA, I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Dab / EL check no disambiguation links and all external links (ELs) check out. There are six ELs which need access dates added, and the "Denying Shakespeare" article needs a "subscription required" tag. Note this is not a review of the sources themselves, just using the tools. Image review to follow, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, although manual checking of the references section found 13 URLs requiring accessdate, and when I checked those, 3 required subscription. All done. Johnuniq (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• Image Review I was asked to review the images in this article last month and did so here. I have just finished looking at all of the images again. While almost all of the images are clearly free (mostly as they are old enough to be out of copyright), many of them were originally lacking some of the required information as to sources, etc. that images should have. Almost all of my concerns with existing images have been addressed since that review, but I still have two concerns, one major for a new image, and one minor for an old image.
  • The major concern is with File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg - this is a composite of two images. The black and white one on the left is clearly old enough to be free, but the color one on the right is taken from a file on the Slovenian Wikipedia. This in turn was taken from an English Wikipedia file File:Shakespeare effigy.jpg, but that image was deleted in 2006 as a copyvio. Fortunately there is a free version available (although all black and white) at File:Monument images 1656 1904.jpg.
    • Please note also that the source information for File:Shakespeare-1747-1656.jpg is pretty unclear. If a new color image is added to this file, then the source infromation will have to be cleaned up too. Note that File:Monument images 1656 1904.jpg does a nice job on sources, etc. (There are some decent color images on Flickr - I can ask if the photographer will change to a free license if you want). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Cipher wheel.jpg is taken from a book, but it would help to have more complete information about the book on the image page. My guess is that it is this book on Google books, so adding a link as well as publisher, location, page number, etc. would also help.Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have corrected the cipher wheel source and the link. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Note that I've reverted the image to the old black and white one until the new one is either fixed or we find a new image with suitable license status to replace it with. --Xover (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • All image concerns resolved. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: In view of the number of cited sources, the sources review may take a while, but it is under way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(Later): The sources in general look excellent. There are a few general issues arising:-

• Several sections have uncited material:-
  • "Case for Shakespeare's authorship", first paragraph
  • "Death of Shakespeare", final paragraph
    • I have sourced the above two. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford", first paragraph.
    • Per the note on my talkpage, if the uncited sentence summarises the material in the subsequent paragraph, it should be transferred to the beginning of that paragraph. Uncited paragraph endings will always provoke questions about citation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I have moved the sentence to the beginning of the 2nd graf. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
  • "William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby", second paragraph.
    • I see Paul has added the missing citations to this section. --Xover (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Citations
  • Shapiro page ranges: the significance of the parenthetical figures should be noted, e.g. (p. 317 (US p. 281) Maybe do this just for the first one?
  • Citation 170 "quoted in..." Is it not possible to cite the quoted article directly?
  • Citations 175 and 211 read simply "Ross". From the standpoint of the inexpert reader it would be helpful if the citation was a bit more specific, e.g. "Ross (Oxfordian Myths)"
    • Citation 170 is now Citation 172. The source, Shapiro, does not provide specific notes, as opposed to a generic bibliographical essay. The relevant thematic note (Brit. ed.p.346) appears to direct us to the non-RS Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter,, to two issues (15 May, 1966, and 15 Dec 1966), which cannot be quoted directly since we filter fringe sources through academic works on them. 'Quoted in' is specified here to clarify that the judgement is by Oxfordians themselves, not by academics hostile to them. Nishidani (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Taking a cue from our two featured play articles (Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet) I've added an explanatory note to the beginning of the References section regarding the UK vs. US page numbers for Shapiro 2010. I've also tweaked the citations to Ross so that they appear as “Ross (Oxfordian Myths)”. I concur with Nishidani: the original article is in this context to be considered a primary source and must be filtered through a reliable secondary source (i.e. Shapiro 2010). --Xover (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
      • But is Ross, Oxfordian Myths a RS (refs now 177, 212)? It is just a web page, written by someone who has a non-academic university post. Also the links in the article, to the article he is criticising, do not work. Poujeaux (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes. If you've got a couple of spare hours and a strong will to live see WP:RS/N Archive 57 Shakespeare authorship question source. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• References: Citations apparently lacking for the following listed references:-
  • Alexandra Alter's Wall Street Journal article 9 April 2010
  • Bacon, Francis (2002). Vickers, Brian. ed. Francis Bacon: The Major Works Again, I can see no citations to this, either.
  • Hammond, Paul (2004)
  • Honigmann, E. A. J. (1998).
    • Removed. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I have restored the first two of these because they are used (search for "Alter 2010" and "Bacon 2002" to confirm). Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Citations
  • Shapiro page ranges: the significance of the parenthetical figures should be noted, e.g. (p. 317 (US p. 281) Maybe do this just for the first one?
  • Citation 170 "quoted in..." Is it not possible to cite the quoted article directly?
  • Citations 175 and 211 read simply "Ross". From the standpoint of the inexpert reader itt would be helpful if the citation was a bit more specific, e.g. "Ross (Oxfordian Myths)" (points listed twice)

I should be obliged if someone with the appropriate tool would do the copyvio checks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

All sources/citation issues raised by me have been resolved satisfactorily. The query about the reliability of "Ross" is someone else's. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• This seems to fail 1e (stability) right now. Perhaps this should be brought back to FAC in a month or two? Just my two cents. NW (Talk) 18:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."

If you're referring to all the comments and complaints from authorship advocates that have been moved to the talk page, that will never cease, but as far as the page goes it's been stable for a while now, greatly facilitated by the a recent ArbCom case that put the entire topic (and this page in particular) under standard discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia policy and halt POV edit warring. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I can understand the reaction, but let's stick to the actual wording of the criteria here. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, one would hope that the ArbCom case helped. But I'm not entirely convinced of that—there was that edit war yesterday with BenJohnson, for example. NW (Talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I see this as a partial WP:IAR case - if the article has to have absolutely no edit wars (and is not protected), then those who espouse the finge theories only have to edit war to keep this from ever being a FA. If one takes a historical perspective, this is stable. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a judgment call. Please don't take this as my brushing the issue aside, but perhaps we can leave this to the FA coordinators to decide and in the meantime focus on content? I think I speak for many of the nominators when I say that such a focus would be welcome. Wrad (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. This is an engaging and well-written (brilliantly in places) contribution. I have a few nit-picks, but these are for consideration only.

I didn't like "run-ins with the law". I think it spoiled the eloquence of the prose.

There is a possible fused participle here "leaving a signed will disposing of his large estate". I don't mind them if the meaning is clear, but others do.

Here, "The language of the will is mundane and unpoetic, and makes no mention of personal papers, books, poems, or the 18 plays that remained unpublished at the time of his death; it also omits shares...", the subject of the sentence is the language of the will, not the will. So what does "it" refer to? And how about "prosaic" instead of "unpoetic"?

Final nit-pick, how about "twelve" instead of "a dozen"?

Thank you for all the hard work on this article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Would "brushes with the law" be better? I don't like the cacophony of "altercations", but that's just a personal preference.

RE "unpoetic" vs "prosaic", I think the first points out the contrast between the language of the will and what anti-Stratfordians imply the language should be in the will of a poet; it's the expectation vs the reality that is seen as some kind of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• • I've adjusted 'run-ins' to 'brushes'.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I'm not going to support or oppose this article since I've done a bit of work on and related to it, but I have some comments/suggestions:

• "Recognition by other playwrights and writers" - I'm not sure "recognition" is the best word here. In general, the section headings could be less..."poetic" ;-). Also, try to avoid having subheadings duplicating their headings - for example, "Case for Shakespeare's authorship" and "Historical evidence for Shakespeare's authorship". In some cases it's unavoidable, but others could be amended

• Addressed, with the possible exception of the two "death" subheadings. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could we move both of the images in "Evidence for Shakespeare's authorship" from his works up a paragraph or two?
  • I have moved the images up. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• When referring to nobles after first mention, be consistent in whether you refer to them by title or surname. For example, in Oxford's subsection you use "De Vere" in the first paragraph and "Oxford" in the next
• I appreciate the reasoning behind quotes-in-refs, but there's a few in the first 30 or so refs (first column on my screen) that are way too long, particularly 3 and 11

• Still a bit heavy in places, but much better, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat surprised that no links to either this article or William Shakespeare appear in the SAQ navbox
  • The title is the link to this article, and it's not live except on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• Categorization: do we really need that many "fringe/pseudo/conspiracy" categories? Might consider adding Category:Theories of history, but Category:Shakespearean authorship is a must. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I deleted the denialism category; I'll let someone else choose which other one to cut. This article is the main article for Category:Shakespearean authorship. A "theory of history" to me means something like Hegelianism. Although I see that the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship is listed on that category page (why no Baconian or Marlovian theories, I wonder? But I jest.), I don't think the SAQ qualifies as a theory of history in the sense in which it is commonly used. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It can't qualify as a theory of history because it refers to what is ostensibly a 'unique' event (an undocumented cover-up). Theories by definition do not explain singularities (except in the restricted sense of that word in physics). Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I know it's the main article for that category - that's why I suggest adding the cat (using the format [[Category:Shakespearean authorship| ]]). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah! I misunderstood, as I am increasingly wont to do late at night. Done. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues mostly addressed to my satisfaction; good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I have read this carefully and read a few of the online refs to spot check that the article accurately reflected the sources. I feel this more than meets the FA criteria, and am glad to support. I have two suggestions to improve the article.

1. Since it is difficult to decipher Shakespeare's surviving signatures, perhaps an explanatory note could be added giving the spellings he used. This might follow the sentence In his surviving signatures William Shakespeare did not spell his name as it appears on most Shakespeare title pages. in the "Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym" section.
2. I am surprised that the "Alternative candidates" only discusses four of the "more than 70 authorship candidates [which] have been proposed". While I understand that the four main candidates are presented in the section, I wonder if an introductory paragraph (before the section on Bacon) might help. Looking at the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I think I would mention the more well known of the candidates in a sentence (Richard Burbage, Sir Francis Drake, the Jesuits, Sir Thomas More, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Rosicrucians, Edmund Spenser, Sir Phillip Sydney, and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. I would also mention the royal candidates: Elizabeth I, James I, Mary Queen of Scots, then say something like However the four major candidates are ... (list them).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do agree that there could be some reference to other candidates, but it is difficult to know which are the "next in line", as it were. The top four clearly stand out from the crowd. The others generally have only one or two advocates. Sir Thomas More, for example, is well known in his own right, but his position as a SAQ candidate is at the margins of the margin. The problem with adding some names is that it becomes an invitation to editors to add more and more to the list, or complain that their pet candidate is being unfairly excluded. We have good RS authorities for the restricted choice of the Fantastic Four. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that the article should at least explain why these four are discussed and no others, and the start of the Alternative candidates section seems the place to put it. If there is a direct quotation from a reliable source that mentions some of the other candidates, that might be a way to include some of them in the article. What about the other suggestion I made? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • As to the signatures, I can take care of that sometime later this week (I'm still reviewing sources for the wording about the congruency of the works to the known author). Paul is right that even though the other candidates are well-known historical figures, their candidacies are very much less well-known and they haven't attracted any cults like the four major ones have. Usually they cause a flurry of news stories when first announced and then die out, cf Henry Neville and Mary Sidney.
    • One problem with inserting information such as that in the article is that a lot of self-evident information is not explicitly stated in the literature. It may seem that we use a lot of sources, but they are relatively few compared to other aspects of Shakespeare studies (our statement in the lede that most scholars disregard the topic is not an exaggeration). For example, we had an introductory statement at the beginning of the candidates section saying that almost all of them used the same type of evidence, but it had to be cut because no source explicitly stated that. A statement explaining why only four candidates are covered may not be available, no matter how obvious it is. The article has to follow the material that is available; we can't write to suit us and then go chase sources to support (although we've caught ourselves doing so and have tried to root them out). Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The four represent candidates who have had, at various periods, high profile for some years in the relevant literature, as opposed to almost all of the rest which, as Tom and Paul wrote, consist mainly of blips, or people mentioned very early on in the piece as part of the group theory. I'll do the relevant article on Henry Neville's candidacy when I recover from the fatigue of all this, which however mainly consists of summing up the arguments in one recent book, whose thesis went nowhere. That could then be linked into the list. We were told at one early point that the article was close to the tolerable limit, and set about relentlessly cutting it back. Another candidate there would perhaps undo work done to keep this at readable length.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I do not want to add a whole (sub)section on any other candidate. I just feel as if there should be some sort of brief explanatory text (even just a sentence) at the start of the section explaining that these four are the ones with the most attention. I would be OK if this did not have a ref, as I see it is a summary of the section, and more a statement of the choice the editors made in writing the section. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 0:428, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • There is a list of sorts in the SAQ template, though the choice of names there is determined solely by the fact there are articles on the people listed in which their candidacy is discussed. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
            • How's that, R? (And can we begin making new sections for ease of editing, or is that allowed at FAC?) Tom Reedy (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
              • That seems fine to me thanks. New sections are usually discouraged in an FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. With respect to the discussion — some six foot above in this thread — of criterion 1 e, surely the stability criterion was never intended to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Wikipedia, such as the various anonymous cowards and obvious socks who can be seen advocating their fringe views on the talkpage. Their purpose is apparently to prevent this excellently written and comprehensive article from (ever) becoming a Featured Article, which they seem to feel would be a blow to their conspiracy theories. Another blow, that is, after the recent Arbitration case which was 100% supportive of the mainstream view of the purported "authorship question". As the Arbitration Committee provided the article with the protection of standard discretionary sanctions, [1] which have already turned out very helpful, [2] it hopefully won't be a problem to keep it stable ongoingly.

• Disclosure: I'll leave it to the delegates to decide whether it's appropriate for me to support. I have followed the development of the article since October 2010, but altered nothing beyond a very few copyedits and, once, protecting it for a week.[3] Bishonen | talk 01:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Support. I've been following the progress of the article for many, many months and have been particularly impressed by the open-mindedness of the principal editors. Their ability to set out, using WP:RS, the positions of the proponents of the main authorship candidates from a WP:NPOV, and their openness to the many and varied suggestions for improvements to the article, despite a great deal of provocation from a number of quarters, and their attention to detail, has been exemplary. Minor disclosure: I've done a bit of copy-editing (some of which is still there!) on the article from time to time. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment, leaning support: I only have one point to make, which is that I feel that the preamble to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section is not written with the degree of non-partisanship required in a neutral encyclopedia article. There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for". This is the only significant issue to which I think that further attention is required in what is in nearly all respects an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I don't see that issue. That paragraph is a simple listing of facts with about as little editorial voice as can be achieved. Is the reason it appears so to you perhaps that the facts it lists are so blatantly inconvenient to the theory? I know we've had to remove references to Authorship supporters seeking “truth” through spiritual mediums (the spirits confirmed their theories) because it exhibits just how ridiculous some of this stuff is (and merely pointing out that they did this leads to accusations of bias); whereas in any other historical article on the `pedia we would have relished the chance of including such an episode for the color and humor it provides in otherwise rather dry prose. Anyways, to at least attempt to address your concern (since I don't see the same issue you do, I am not sure how well I've succeeded) I've removed the most obviously inconvenient facts (that other contemporary playwrights have little personal data known, that interpreting this is unique to Shakespeare, and that this is the fallacy of argumentum ex silentio). Does that remove the appearance of an editorial voice for you? If so, could my speculation as to its cause above be correct? I don't mind losing the long (looong) list of names, but I think the rest of the removed stuff is relevant and important in that paragraph and it'd be a shame to lose it over a mere misunderstanding. --Xover (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed one word in that section - 'conspiracy' to the more neutral 'attempt'. Perhaps Brian could comment on whether he is now happy? I agree with Tom's statement at the top that POV issues have been discussed and sorted out, though it is possible that some remain that we have not spotted. For example it could be argued (and has been) that the case against should not be presented through Stratfordian authors (such as Matus in that section). Personally, I think this is not a problem as long as the wording is careful and fair. Poujeaux (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The article does a poor job of portraying its subject, covering only a biased subset of the basic reasons for which the authorship question exists. Furthermore, the reasons that are given are covered in a superficial and disparaging manner, whereas most of the lengthy and unwieldy article tries to argue that the authorship question is not valid. Why did none of Shakespeare's contemporaries record meeting the man who was the writer (before the publication of the First Folio)? Why did no patrons leave records of patronage? What became of all the manuscripts? It's almost as if the authors of the article are afraid to publicize the real reasons why notable men and women over the years have raised the authorship question. References that could provide some insight into the authorship question have also been removed under the pretext that such references are not RS. See the discussion at: Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Cite_RS. In short, this is far from being FAC material, IMHO. Jdkag (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So do you have any specific actionable objections? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

These "why" questions apply equally to most other writers of the time, whose lives are generally not well documented. Hardly any play manuscripts of the time survive. The point, as it happens, is made inthe article ("No letters or signed manuscripts written by Shakespeare survive."). Of course any references to meeting the writer Shakespeare would be and are interpreted by SAQ afficionados as part of the conspiracy or as the intentional use of the "real author"'s pen-name. It's an unfalsifiable system of argument. Our rules require that the balance of argument be given to the mainstream position, so Jdkag is asking that we suspend the rules in this case. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question."

In layman's language, you are saying the article covers the SAQ theories in terms of what WP:RS say, and not in terms of what WP:Fringe books argue, and that what notable people like Charlie Chaplin or Mark Twain, or sundry lawyers and United States judges, have said should be given equal treatment with what Shakespearean scholars say on a question of Elizabethan history.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I also submit that an article should be lauded as a Featured Article not only for its content and style, but for its development process. A particularly contentious article is likely to suffer from problems of WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY, and the process followed by the SAQ article editors has been exemplary of this problem. Is it possible to edit such a contentious article while also adhering to Wiki ideology? SAQ may prove it is nearly impossible in certain situations, but it would be a shame to flaunt such a conclusion by making this FA.Jdkag (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is looking for 'praise' (lauded). The article has not suffered from any notable contentiousness for almost seven months now, as more than a dozen editors of widely differing backgrounds and expertise have come to it to scrutinize and purge its defects, and improve its qualities. Subsequent editing has shown no problems of incivility or ownership, and WP:AGF hasn't arisen because all are editing to the article, not against each other. The process has been notably civil, esp. since Arbcom stepped in. Finally generic objections repeated against an article whose many editors have demonstrated a willingness to undertake whatever third party experts ask of them so that the criteria of the encyclopedia's highest expectations are fully met misses the point. There are many articles in this 'controversial' area desperately requiring a clean-up and dedicated redaction to meet minimum standards. Rather than harp continually about the putative failings of the one article that has so far received thorough community-wide attention per a strict reading of the relevant policy protocols, it would perhaps be more productive to tackle those that fail every test of WP:NPOV such as the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Nishidani (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)