This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
How close is this article to GA? I can see the lead needs help, as well as a few thing brought up on Judith's page. If that's all there is, we should bring it together and nominate it for GA status... Wrad 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The prose, in places, is staccato, flows badly, and echoes the sources awkwardly. It also reflects the fact that the article was written in paralell with the Judith Quiney article, which makes the focus a little strange in some places. And a quick scan just now revealed that there are still bits that are not properly cited. I think coverage-wise the article is in fairly good shape; there isn't much more known about Thomas that's worth including here. So, in summary, it still needs some work, I think.--Xover 11:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
“he decorated them with a couplet in French from a romance by Mellin de Saint-Gelais.”
Neither of the cited sources, however (Honan and Schoenbaum), refer to Mellin de Saint-Gelais specifically: they merely refer to “Saint-Gelais” and may therefore be referring to his uncle, Octavien. At any rate, through some original research, it appears that the source is currently unascertained: the earliest source says it's from Saint-Gelais the romance, as though it were a work rather than an author, and of the subsequent sources one (French) work from c.1930 says it was by Octavien, and another (English) work of the 1990s says it's by Mellin.
As to how this should be reflected in the article, I don't know, which is why I'm recording this concern here. It could simply be changed to say “Saint-Gelais”, but then that leaves people guessing and doesn't convey the full complexity of the matter. To remove it altogether would be bad too: Wikipedia oughtn't gloss over the difficulties of history, but present them as clearly as possible. What is the clearest possible exposition in this circumstance? Does anybody have any opinions?