Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banquo/archive1

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 not promoted by Karanacs 15:49, 22 September 2010 [1].

Banquo

[edit]

Banquo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wrad (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the first Shakespeare character article to reach FA status. Currently a GA. Wrad (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—a dab link to Fort William, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • image review All the images are suitably licensed, one typo fixed in description Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is essentially Banquo (character), & should probably either be expanded or renamed. Whether there was a historical Banquo, and what he might have got up to, needs expansion if it stays as it is. The fictional Banquo is obviously much the better known, and probably qualifies as the "primary meaning", but I don't think fictional characters should usurp even the most obscure real people they are very loosely based on. Also, there's plenty of room for the woodcut from Holinshead and the Fuseli that are at Three Witches, both rather more interesting than the pictures used so far. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the naming of the article, I can see your side of it. If people think renaming to Banquo (character) makes more sense, that would be an easy change. Expansion doesn't seem like the best move here, since this article is intended to be about the character in Macbeth, not the real Banquo (if he existed).
    • The pictures are a different story. I really like our picture of Banquo as a ghost sitting at the feast in Macbeth's place, and don't think anything at Three Witches could replace it. It is Banquo's most famous scene. On the other hand, the second picture might be worth replacing. Wrad (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting replacing anything? The article has only two images, and tons of space. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "rather more interesting." Wrad (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, One is progress! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the naming of the article a critical issue or can it be left until after FAC for a move discussion (to avoid messing with links to to various pages and such)? While I haven't looked specifically on the issue of whether there's material on the historical Banquo, I'm fairly sure there will never be an article on him (iff he existed at all, there doesn't appear to be enough data for much original research, much less encyclopedic coverage). I don't particularly care about the naming of the article—above vaguely general esthetic concerns—but neither do I see much value for the project in having a dab page at Banquo whose only link is to Banquo (character) when the character is the clear (snowball) primary meaning. If new research is done, or sources we've missed are found, this article can easily accommodate that information for quite some time before there's a need to split them (and hence decide on which merits pride of place). --Xover (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For an article on such a small subject, the writing is generally not great. This passage is especially problematic: "In Shakespeare's day, Banquo was thought to be a direct ancestor of the King James I. However, Banquo's Stuart descent was revised in the 19th century, when it was discovered that the portion of James' ancestry connected to Banquo, the Fitzalans, might plausibly have descended from a Breton family instead.[2] Whether or not Banquo, Thane of the Scottish province of Lochaber, actually existed remains in doubt."
Why "the" King?
You can't "revise" a "descent".
the next bit is still iffy, and must a source from 1884 be used?
Where does Lochaber come in, and what is the source for this? It has never remotely been a "province", and at this time was a parish at best.

There are numerous careless style points: "In Chronicles Banquo ...", "honor", no link to Cawdor, and so on. "Bradley, Andrew. Shakespearean Tragedy. Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2003" - he is always known as A. C. Bradley, and the book was first published in 1904, and has countless editions, which should be indicated. I think you were probably too quick to shorten the lead, which did meet the WP:LEAD suggested length, & I imagine now doesn't. But generally the prose just has an ungainly feel, & needs a good bit of polishing; a last example: "Banquo's ability to live on in different ways is another oppositional force, in this case to Macbeth's impending death." - meaning what exactly? Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is extremely difficult to respond to since everything is all mashed together, but here goes. We can just remove the "the." It was left over from an earlier fix. You can, in fact, revise a descent. British monarchs are historically very good at doing that. People have been revising history for ages. I don't see a problem with using a 19th century source to cite something that happened in the 19th century.
It's a matter of vocubulary - it is the theory or whatever of his descent that is revised.
    • I see the point with your later source worries with Bradley.
    • We can fix little things, but I'm not sure what to do about an "ungainly feel."
I can see that; get someone else to copyedit it.
No, it doesn't. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Looks like it's a case of writer's blindness. I thought it had been copyedited, but maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. Someone besides me better look at it. Wrad (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - not a bad article, just a few concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nomination withdrawn. If someone with a lot of time on his hands wants to dig up better sources, go for it. Wrad (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So far all the issues brought up appear manageable, and there's no particular hurry (a typical FAC is open for, what, weeks?). Why not stick with it? I plan to help out as much as I can, and I think this article really has a shot. --Xover (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just have my own time constraints in real life and won't be able to deal with the source issues brought up. If you want to help out with that, maybe we can deal with it. Wrad (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm looking for a more modern source for the bit about the Stuarts' ancestry now, but it'll be a bit challenging as I don't think anyone has really addressed it specifically after Chalmers assigned the Fitzallans a Breton ancestry in 1809 (iirc). But even if we can't dig up a more recent source for it it'd probably be ok to just remove the relevant sentence; it's most relevant to a postulated historical Banquo (which, as far as I can tell, nobody much is suggesting ever existed) and, more importantly, to an article on James I and the Stuarts, than to Banquo in Macbeth (i.e. this article). Other than that the concerns appear to be chiefly related to prose, and that's nothing that can't be fixed by a thorough copyedit, which I'll be happy to help out with. Again, we're in no hurry here; as long as manage to address the concerns brought up by the reviewers in a reasonable time there's no need to obsessively refresh the review page for hours each day, jumping to fix every little point in minutes (as I know I tend to do when I'm excited about a GA/FA nom). The FAC reviewers may be editor-eating meanies, who welcome proud editors in and spit shivering neurotic wrecks back out, but they're usually patient editor-eating meanies. :-) And if worse come to worse, and we ultimately fail to pass as FA this time, the reviews will have helped improve the article immensely in the mean time, and we'll know what the weak points are that need to be fix before a second nom. In other words, don't sweat it; let's just address what we can in the time we have available and see how far that gets us. As I mention above, I think the worst problem is the prose and that's entirely fixable. Anyways, unless you're still sure you want to withdraw the nomination (in which case it'll be closed, and nobody will waste time doing a review that won't be addressed), I suggest we move this discussion to the review page's Talk page to avoid cluttering up the review, and then dig in to do the work. --Xover (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't think this nom is hopeless, or I would have said so (maybe - well anyway I don't). But the prose does need a good going through. Johnbod (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just didn't think I could handle everything timewise, but if Xover is willing to help we can keep moving ahead. Wrad (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there any information on the adaptations as to how they depicted Banquo's killing. The original Shakespeare prose doesn't seem to specify anything, but on some movie I was shown in English he was hacked in the back with an axe. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really haven't seen much on that. The most focused-on murders in the play, so far as I have seen, are those of Duncan and of Macduff's son. Wrad (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are certainly a wide variety of ways adaptors have portrayed it; for instance, when you've adapted Macbeth to a nineties gangland setting the ambush and murder is likely to involve modern pistols and such. However the scene is a minor (if pivotal) one, and the critical editions of the play or journal articles etc. are likely to sum up the entire movie adaptation in at most a paragraph or two (often as little as a sentence). IOW, we could probably add a description of this, but that would be original research. The focus of the sources overall is on the character's role in the play (i.e. as a foil to Macbeth), various psychoanalytical readings (often really discussing Macbeth and talking about Banquo mainly because the former is reacting to the latter), and to some degree the historicity, or lack thereof, of Banquo. At best we'd be able to source some descriptions of how Banquo was changed overall for the adaptations (i.e. he might be described as the crime lord's younger cousin or some such), but even for that we'd pretty much be scraping the bottom of the barrel I think (and it'd be the movie adaptations, based on reviews and IMDB and such; productions and adaptations for the stage simply aren't covered in this aspect and level of detail in the reliable sources). --Xover (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article reads well in general. I don't see a reason for it to be renamed; even if the supposed historical Banquo merits his own article, Shakespeare's Banquo remains much more prominent and therefore the primary topic. But I do see a few problems (some quite minor):

  • "the "greater honor" Duncan mentions Macbeth as possessing"—actually, it is Ross who says this, although in a message from Duncan.
    • I will leave it the way it is, then, rather than say something convoluted like "the 'greater honor' Duncan mentions Macbeth as possessing in a message delivered by Ross." Wrad (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not convinced. I don't see obvious evidence in the text why we should suppose these to have been Duncan's literal words, and the Amneus paper cited (part of which happens to be available on Google Books) also mentions that "When ... Ross brings Duncan's "thanks and payment" to Macbeth he says:". Ucucha 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the cited sources are available online (e.g., on JSTOR), and should have links.
    • I thought the policy was not to link to websites requiring a subscription. Am I mistaken? Wrad (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:CITE: "A citation ideally includes a link or ID number to help editors locate the source". Per WP:ELREG: "A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article (see Official links below) or the link is part of an inline reference (see Wikipedia:Citing sources) ... This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles" (emphasis mine). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure whether the article represents the full range of available scholarship. Although many distinct sources are cited, Banquo has accrued a rather large amount of scholarship as a fairly prominent character in one of Shakespeare's most famous plays—"Banquo" is mentioned 1494 times in JSTOR, for example—and there may well be important ideas there that are not in the article. I looked at a few of the JSTOR articles, and they do contain things this article is missing—JSTOR 2873281, for example, stresses Banquo's observations of nature as another contrast with Macbeth. There is a balance between being too concise and going overboard with details, but I'm not yet convinced this article has handled that the right way.

Ucucha 20:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • After going over it again, I do, I think, vaguely remember reading that article. I think my instincts towards not including it were probably motivated by the kind of thing you're talking about (too many details). In general, if the things I'm reading start repeating themselves again and again, I focus on those things that repeat and include them. This way, the major points are covered comprehensively, though some repetitive sources will be left out. This article focuses on one particular line of Banquo's that is already mentioned in our article in a slightly different context. After reading it again, I can see it probably could add something to the article in a brief sentence.
    • I scoured JSTOR as I was writing this article, and I doubt that I missed much. I would caution that the fact that Banquo is mentioned 1494 times in JSTOR is not a true indication of what kind of scholarship is available about Banquo. Macbeth is a very famous play. Many things are written about it, but minor characters such as Banquo are normally only mentioned in passing. Scholars very much prefer to talk about Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, or the Three Witches. The actual number of articles talking about Banquo in a substantial way is significantly smaller, and the number of those articles talking about him in a new or unique way is smaller still. For a very brief example, see the 10th item down on the search, which only has two very passing references to Banquo and really adds nothing new to this article. As these searches typically list items with the most references first, this is an indicator of the kinds of sources the vast majority of those 1400 are. Wrad (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have undoubtedly read more of the literature than I have, and your explanation is sensible. Still, the article is fairly short, and there certainly seems room for ideas like Banquo's love of nature. Ucucha 15:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the article you mention doesn't actually argue that Banquo loves nature; it makes the point that Banquo's mode of speech is naturalistic and conrete rather than supernatural and abstract. When he remarks to Fleance that “There's husbandry in heaven, / Their candles are all out” it has been previously argued (even assumed) that he is mirroring Macbeth's earlier plea to dark spirits to hide his deeds in darkness, and that he means the candles are (blown) out and the heavens are dark. The article mentioned argues that Banquo tends to speak of what he sees around him in fairly straightforward descriptive terms; so this quote probably should be taken to mean that there's a higher power (i.e. God) looking down on human affairs and that all the stars currently shining in the sky are a sign of this (IOW, he's describing a clear starry night sky). But it fits in fairly well where we use the quote so I'll see if I can't work it in as a counter-point to the argument that Macbeth has literally darkened the sky in the relevant section. --Xover (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banquo/archive1&oldid=1086103701"