Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fleance/1

Fleance

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article has uncited text, including entire paragraphs and statements attributed to people without citations. The lead could also use an update for formatting. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to help with this. I haven't been involved with the page previously, so far as I can remember. Some immediate thoughts I have are:
- Is it right that the page should attempt to cover both the historical person and the Shakespearean character? Or are those two separate entities requiring two separate articles? If the latter my worry is that the historical one would be little more than a stub. Is there precedent for this kind of decision?
- Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to the character rather than the historical figure? (In this regard I would venture a guess that MUCH more has been said in reliable sources about the fictional Fleance than the historical one.)
- Is there a WP:WEIGHT issue in devoting so much of the article to Fleance's depiction in films, when he is equally - or moreso - a stage character?
- I've quite a lot of sources on this so if @Z1720: you can give me an indication of which bits you consider to be unsourced or undersourced, I can start doing some fixing.
Anyone have any thoughts on any of the above? AndyJones (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyJones: Some answers:

Probably two separate articles, though if the historical figure is not notable, then it can't get its own article.
If the article focuses on the Shakespeare character, it doesn't need too much information about the historical figure.
I don't think the article needs to have too much information about its various depictions, especially since Macbeth has been staged and depicted several times. Instead, it should focus on what academics have said about the character's role in the play.
I have added cn tags per the GAR. Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look in the next day or so. Would you (or anyone) have any objection to me removing the whole paragraph beginning "Theatre scholar Marvin Rosenberg theorises..."? No doubt we could reliably source what Rosenberg says from his book. But we cannot reliably source from there that he is wrong, and why, which is what the article currently says, in Wikipedia's own voice. My conclusion is that it's WP:OR, and should go. AndyJones (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now acted on this. AndyJones (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AndyJones, do you intend to continue working on the article? No worries if not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I'd say probably not in a major way, but I will look through my sources again to see if I have anything which helps to address the issues raised here. If I don't repost here by 28th you can safely assume I concluded I had nothing new to say.

I miss Wrad! AndyJones (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.