Talk:Judith Quiney

GA review / GA hold

This article is nearly GA, in my opinion. Here are a few things that would improve it:

• The lead is not a stand alone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. It seems more like it should be the opening section of the article ("Birth" perhaps?).
  • I see Wrad has already made a start at this, so we'll whip this into shape. `tis my fault it was in such sorry state; I used the lead as a dumping ground for unsourced statements from the original article when I rewrote it.--Xover 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the lead is in somewhat better shape now.--Xover 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It is definitely better. However, it is a little jarring to have her die and come back to life again, so to speak. Maybe the second paragraph should be the last paragraph? Awadewit | talk 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I was thinking the same thing. Switched it out. Wrad 00:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Do we know anything else about Judith's life? I assume not, but I must ask, since the article seems a little thin.
  • There may be some more tidbits lurking, but they'd be fairly obscure; and given the level of detail we go into as it is, I doubt they'd be very relevant. Judith seems to have very much disappeared in her husband's shadow, and a lot of what is know is actually about Thomas (not to mention Shakespeare himself) rather then Judith.--Xover 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought. I just wanted to check. Awadewit | talk 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The quotations in the notes are quite extensive - is there any way to minimize this? I fear most readers won't read them.
  • I think the only way to minimize them is to delete the quotations outright. I'm quite attached to them, as a personal preference, and would very much prefer to keep them, but it's not something I would fill the moat with burning pitch over. They were quite carefully selected to cover several citations each, and whittled to be as short as possible without misrepresenting the source.--Xover 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I appreciate the precision. Just be aware it will be lost on most readers. :) Awadewit | talk 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• There is no mention of Woolf's "Judith Shakespeare" in the "Literary references" section, without a doubt the most famous reference to the name "Judith Shakespeare". Might some explanation be given of that?
  • It used to be there, but I moved it to the top as a "see also" since it isn't the same Judith Shakespeare. Should I add it back or no? Wrad 04:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • I would add in a few sentences, explaining why Woolf chose the name "Judith Shakespeare" for her character. I think that readers will want to know after seeing the link. Awadewit | talk 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't find anything in my research explaining where Woolf got the name, much less any connection to Judith Quiney. Do you know of anything? Wrad 18:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • "In A Room of One's Own, Woolf created the character of 'Judith Shakespeare' to represent the experience of a talented female in early modern English society. In seeking to answer the question why there had been no female Shakespeares, Woolf became frustrated by the historical blank representing the life of the average woman of that period: 'What I find deplorable,' she observed to the young ladies of Girton and Newnham in 1928, 'is that nothing is known about women before the eighteenth century'. To fill this gap, Woolf imagined the lot of Shakespeare's sister, which is not a happy one. In Woolf's story, Judith is denied a formal education, discouraged from wasting her time scribbling, betrothed in her teens, and beaten by her father; she runs away to London, is rejected by the theater world, becomes pregnant, and finally kills herself 'one winter's night and lies buried at some cross-roads'." (44-45), from Margaret J. M. Ezell, Writing Women's Literary History, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press (1993). ISBN 0-8018-4432-0. Let me know if you need more. Awadewit | talk 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, I know the story and can add it back, it just seemed as though you knew of some connection between the two. I guess just give a brief description of her and then explain that she is a totally different, fictional person not directly related to Quiney? Wrad 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
            • So long as we make sure inspired by and fictional character are prominent, the original text there can probably stand as it was. I quite sympathize with Mrs. Woolf here; the amount of information about the real Judith is quite abyssmal!--Xover 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
              • I agree. We'll go ahead and use a minor adjustment of Awadewit's quote. Wrad 22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
                • I added it. Wrad 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
                  • Nice work. Awadewit | talk 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article enters into a lot of details quite quickly - some of these need to be explained further.

• EX: another £50 on the condition that she relinquish all interest in the Chapel Lane cottage - we don't know what the Chapel Lane cottage is yet

 Done Swapped the sections around so the details of the properties come before Will's will.--Xover 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• EX: In July 1616 he swapped houses with his brother-in-law, William Chandler, and moved his vintner shop to the upper half of a house at the corner of High Street and Bridge Street. - What town are we in?

 Done Did a quick copyedit that establishes the town early in the, admittedly dense, text.--Xover 21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• The article needs a quick copy edit to catch a few things.

• EX: Thomas had got a Margaret Wheeler pregnant - "got" is imprecise and generally considered colloquial

 Done Changed to "had impregnated a ..." Wrad 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• EX: has led to speculation that this was the cause for William Shakespeare's hastily altered last will and testament.[9] He first summoned his lawyer Francis Collins in January, and then on 25 March 1616 hastily made further alterations - two "hasty's" in a row

 Done removed the second. Wrad 19:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• EX: This rather elaborate entail is usually taken to indicate that Judith's husband was not to be trusted with William's inheritance, though some speculate that it may simply indicate that Susanna was the favoured daughter - Shakespeare instead of William?

 Done changed it. Wrad 19:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• EX: “The Cage” figures in a further indication of why Judith's father did not trust his son-in-law. - wordy

I changed this to “The Cage” provides further insights into why Judith's father did not trust his son-in-law. Wrad 19:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• This point is not relevant for GA. It seems risky to rely on only two authors for the article. Since there has been so much speculation on Shakespeare, as you are well aware, I worry that we are privileging these two writers' points of view.
  • Schoenbaum's Compact Documentary Life and Chambers' Study of Facts and Problems were the two best and most comprehesive references I had to hand. Both are considered generally authorative. Chambers in particular stays quite close to the primary sources—reproducing in facsimilie the baptisimal and burial records, for instance—with well documented explanatory prose surrounding. I'm quite punctilious about citing sources—and the more the better, as a general rule (within reason, of course)—so I'll try to scare up some more here. Still, I'm not particularly worried about relying on Chambers and Schoenbaum, at least not for this particular article.--Xover 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe emphasize these works' "standardness" or their representativeness of the scholarly consensus in the article? Awadewit | talk 18:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm. I'm not sure how I would do that in practice. It feels awkward to me to discuss the sources in the main article body, above stuff like “the Shakespeare scholar Chambers remarked…”. Suggestions? I've added a Bibliography section, which may or may not help this a bit.--Xover 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
        • What I usually do is say things like "the standard biographies agree that..." or "Chambers writes, in what has become a standard biography of Shakespeare". That sort of thing. (I like the Bibliography - such sections help those coming to wikipedia hoping it will lead them to more detailed sources.) Awadewit | talk 23:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have any questions regarding this review, drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll read the article again either today or tomorrow. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am now passing the article - it is much improved. One small thing: The lead may be a bit too detailed - you might think about generalizing more there. I don't think that this article needs quite so long a lead. That may simply be personal preference, though. Nice work. Awadewit | talk 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

I hope you don't mind that I added some images. Feel free to change them - I just thought they might brighten up the page a bit. Awadewit | talk 00:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I added one myself. Wrad 01:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no objections; I'd been considering what images might fit here myself, so that's much appreciated. However, since New Place was demolished (only the well and some foundation stones remain) in 1759 by the then owner, vicar Francis Gastrell of Frodsham, I suspect that particular image is somewhat misnamed. Could it, perhaps, be a picture of Nash's House—Thomas Nash, Elizabeth's husband's, house; which lay next door to New Place—taken from the gardens now occupying the ground where New Place once stood?--Xover 08:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - I was only following the label on the commons. Sometimes those labels are incorrect (shocking!). By all means take it down or call it "Elizabethan house in Stratford" or something like that. Awadewit | talk 09:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh heh. No worries. I'll dig up something suitably picturesque and marginally related to replace it. :-) --Xover 09:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)