I don't think "The wife is also strict" is a good translation,
because, as I understand it in English, it means "She is strict but something else". She could be nice and also strict.
And if you were saying "The wife also is strict. It would mean that the woman and somebody else, are strict.
And, what I read from Latin grammar, is that "quoque" is related to the word it comes *right after". So, here, the only meaning in Latin is that:
-[the woman also]- [is strict].
And not [the woman]- [is also strict].
So, according to my Latin grammar, the translation is wrong in English. The only right translation is with "also" coming after "wife".
Either, i.e. The husband is strict. The wife is also strict. or... The wife is smart, resourceful. The wife is also strict.
Upon further research, the quoque is adjoined to the emphatic word. i.e. Uxor quoque severa est. 'The wife also is strict' uxor est severa quoque 'the wife is also strict'
I'm only a beginner, but I disagree.
Logically, it's not possible for a language to be so ambiguous, not knowing what "also" is referring to, when you can't rely on the word order.
I read a rule, saying that "quoque" comes right after the word it modifies. So, quoque, in your Latin sentence is related to "Uxor", not "strict". It's the wife also, in addition to someone else, not the wife being strict, and also something else.
I've found confirmation of this rule in several place:
Anthon explains, 'Because they also dwell near the (Germans.' But it is to their dwelling near them that qw de causa refers ; and the very position of
quoque, after and not before ###, shows that it is in connexion with the first part of the former sentence, (...) The > distinction is important, ss depending on the place of quoque.
Sed mihi quoque quoddam negotium agendum est or sed negotium quoque... For the place of quoque it depends whether you mean "you have a job to do, I too" or just "beside other things, there's also a job..." I'm not sure which > one it is.
The posts you gave were a little disjointed and confusing. The one referencing DBG had a lot of typos (no doubt from when it was scanned to text) and didn't make your point clear. The other was a forum and involved debate between two individuals who's Latin qualifications were not made clear (not that I'm doubting them). I did however find in Lewis and Short that it's attached to the emphatic word.