Talk:Banquo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Banquo has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 24, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Banquo is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Banker?

In Dorothy Dunnett's novel King Hereafter Lulach (who represents the voice of confused history) refers to Abbot Crinan as banqueris, in reference to his tax-collecting and coining. This is presumably meant to suggest Banquo. While I'm not sold on the idea of Crinan as Banquo, is there any evidence for the theory that it was a title, meaning "banker", rather than a name? Daibhid C 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Dunnett's novel or the theory to which you're refering, but the name sounds really close to the French for banker (banquier). Maybe it's a dual reference to his profession and to Banquo? Sorry to speculate on a text with which I'm not familiar :). Ştefan 07:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any source that makes this connection. Wrad (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ambiguous statement in Source para

In the Chronicles, Banquo is an accomplice in Macbeth's murder. I don't have Holinshed to hand, but does this mean "murder of King Duncan", or "the murder of Macbeth" (which is what it looks like as written), or should it be "murders" rather than "murder", if Banquo participated in more than one of the murders committed by Macbeth? Inquiring minds - and GA reviewers, quite likely - would like to know. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Will fix. Wrad (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Fail

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is engaging and well-sourced – clearly a good deal of time and effort has been devoted to it. Given the importance of the subject and the number of potential sources available, however, the depth just isn't there right now. All of the sources in the article right now are from periodicals, even though a number of scholarly books have been written about Macbeth, which would surely be of use here. I did a quick survey and found ISBN 082409025X, ISBN 0710090153, ISBN 1565108515, and ISBN 031330047X. You should be able to find these (or others) to provide more comprehensive coverage.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Generally the prose is decent, but a number of awkward and run-on sentences plague the article. For example, the lead states: "Later, Macbeth sees Banquo as a threat to his lust for power and has him murdered, but Banquo's son, Fleance, escapes." The number of clauses set apart by commas makes it a confusing sentence. Another example from "Source": "Whether or not Banquo, Thane of the Scottish province of Lochaber, actually existed remains in doubt." This would be more effective as: "The actual existence of Banquo, Thane of the Scottish province of Lochaber, remains in doubt." I'd recommend a thorough copyedit. (I'll be happy to provide this once the structural elements discussed below are remedied.)
    B. MoS compliance:
    No problems here.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Single-paragraph sections on "Source" (which actually combines source and changes from the original source), "Role in the play" and "Performances" strike me as lacking. Surely the "Role" section should contain at least two paragraphs (one on the living Banquo and one on the ghost – and some of the info from "Analysis" should be moved here). And a play as frequently (and famously) performed as Macbeth should have specific references to actors who have played Banquo (like Martin Shaw in the Polanski version), as well as the various ways the character has been interpreted. I also feel that the "Analysis" section should cover more elements, such as the transition from friend to foe (this is mentioned but only briefly), and Macbeth's efforts to turn the murderers against him.
    B. Focused:
    Generally good here. As mentioned above, parts of the "Analysis" section should be merged into the "Role" section. Also, one of the lines from the lead ("he does nothing to accuse Macbeth of murdering the King, even though he has reason to believe Macbeth is at fault") does not reappear in the body of the article (so far as I can tell).
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    The second image should have a painting-by credit, and – since it's not a complete sentence – should not end in a period. I wonder if you might find places to include some other images as well.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Again, this article does a good job of approaching the major aspects of the character. I believe with a couple of scholarly texts, it can really shine. Good luck with it, and please let me know if you'd like to have me copyedit the piece once it's got more meat on its bones. – Scartol • Tok 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the role section, one paragraph is fine. Banquo's role as a ghost has no speaking parts and no real stage directions other than just to be there. Two simple sentences are enough to state that he appears as a ghost. I don't agree with combining analysis with that section, either. It just makes things too messy. As for famous actors who have played the role, I haven't found any good sources talking about them. Aside from a pointless list, I haven't found anything that would add any real content in that area. The Source section, I feel, covers things very well. I feel that way because sources I look at are all starting to repeat themselves on the subject. You give suggestions on analysis which I really can't add unless they are sourced. Are these things you have actually read about or are they your own original research? I've read just about every critical essay I could find on Banquo, and then some. People just don't talk about him as much as you seem to think. Wrad (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't done the research you have on the subject, so I don't know for sure that the depth I've mentioned exists. However, I can't imagine that a play as important and thoroughly-studied as Macbeth doesn't have any more detailed analysis of one of its main characters. (Though of course it's possible.)
How about this: I'll go to the library tonight and see what I can find in those four sources I mentioned. Meantime, how about we ask Awadewit for a second opinion? I believe you've worked with her in the past, and I expect we both value her erudition. Sound fair? – Scartol • Tok 23:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. That's more than fair and I'm surprised you're willing to do so much. To be honest, I was very surprised at how little there was about this guy. He just hasn't drawn much attention. He doesn't stand out to feminists, gender critics, or just about anyone. If you can find more on him, just let me know. Wrad (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Just back from the library. Found three books with relevant info. Do you want me to ask Awad for a second opinion, or shall we just work to add info and then I'll do a copyedit and then we'll re-submit it? (I can start working on it tomorrow.) Lemme know. – Scartol • Tok 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Do these books really say anything new? If they do, go ahead and add them. Wrad (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a variety of details from the books I found. There is additional info in Macbeth: Texts and Contexts, about the historical sources and changes made by Shakespeare; I would recommend that it be added to the "Source" section. (I don't have time or background to do it.) If you want another copyedit before you re-submit it for GA, lemme know. I reiterate my desire to see the "Role" section split into two paragraphs (one on Banquo in real life and one on the ghost), as well as a rearrangement of some of the Analysis info. Good luck! – Scartol • Tok 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently my library doesn't have this book. Wrad (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I found another book to help the section with. Scartol has finished a copy-edit, so I think we're ready for another GA nom. Wrad (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second GAC review

This is an excellent article little article. As far as the criteria goes, it's well written, factually accurate, broad enough in its coverage, definitely neutral and stable, and both of the images are correctly tagged and from the commons. I have a couple suggestions, but this is surely ready for GA-class:

  • However, in Chronicles Banquo is an accomplice to Macbeth: needs a comma, but perhaps it would be less awkward if it were reworded to say, "In Chronicles, however, Banquo..."?
  • fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it "Holinshed's Chronicles" ("Source" section) or "Holinshed's Chronicles" (lead)?
  • Books I've read seem to have the second version. Wrad (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • he has fewer lines than the relatively insignificant Ross: who is Ross? Well, I mean, I know, but a little context may help others who are less versed.
  • Fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Banquo warns him that wickedness often offers men a small hopeful truth...: just a personal quirk, but "often offers" is strangely repetitive.
  • Fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Banquo argues that evil often offers gifts which lead only to betrayal and destruction: ditto.
  • Fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There are inconsistencies in how the acts and scenes are referred to. Is it "Act Three, Scene Four", "Act II" and "Act III, Scene 1." (ref 7), or "Act two, scene one"?
  • Fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 is the only one I see that cites the play for a quote, but there are other quotes which do not have citations: "There's husbandry in heaven, / Their candles are all out", "Hold, take my sword ... Take thee that too" etc. I definitely advocate for refs from the source.
  • fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In "Source", an em dash is used, but en dashes are used in "Ghost scenes"; either or, not both.
  • Several of the refs use a regular dash instead of an en dash for page ranges.
  • I know I've done this before, but I'm having trouble telling the difference this time... How do I fix this? Wrad (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I won't let a few dashes keep the article away from GA-class; it's such a silly, picky thing, but rather than going back and manually replacing all page range dashes with the proper en dash, you could save yourself the eyestrain and ask Brighterorange to run his dashbot for you. :) María (habla conmigo) 21:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Other than those (mostly) minor things, this is quite good. Just to make it "official", however, I'll put the nomination on hold. Let me know when everything has been taken care of and I'll happily pass the article. María (habla conmigo) 18:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, this now passes with flying colors. Great job! María (habla conmigo) 13:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)