Jump to content

Talk:Maurice (Shelley)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

This article is well-written, and although it's short, I have faith that every effort was made to make it as comprehensive as possible. (Given that the work was only rediscovered in 1997, it is sensible that not much would be available about it.)

There are a few issues I'd like to see resolved before I feel comfortable passing it as a GA, so for now I'll put it on hold. I feel confident that they will be resolved (or explained) quickly.

  • Throughout the summer, Claire wrote anxiously to Byron, begging to see Allegra; he consistently refused. Do we know why? Byron comes off sounding like a royal jerkface in this section. I trust this is how the reader is supposed to feel?
  • Believing that the Shelleys were careless parents who were responsible for the deaths of their children and concerned that the children were not receiving proper religious training, he consistently refused to let Claire see their daughter. - added this explanation from one of Byron's letters and, yes, Byron was a "royal jerkface" Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary Shelley wrote Maurice for Anna Laura Georgiana Tighe, or Laurette... Insofar as we've seen her as simply "Laurette" at this point, I wonder if the full name is necessary here?
  • "Writing and publication" contains background biographical info on George Tighe and Margaret, Lady Mountcashell – but we just learned all about them in the Background section. Perhaps these parts were written at different times, with the intent of merging? (Seems like the sentences between footnotes 7 and 8 could be moved into Background.)
  • In his article on Maurice, Mekler suggests... Could we get a first name and an identifying noun (critic, biographer, etc)? Same with Tomalin later on.
  • I don't know if L. Adam Mekler is a literary critic, so I just started the sentence "in his article on Maurice". I have expanded the name. The first instance of Tomalin already says "Percy Shelley and Wollstonecraft biographer". Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little jarring for me to be reading about the novel's potential for publication, and then suddenly jump to the part about when it was found in 1997. Maybe we need a sentence about "It was lost for xxx years" or "The last mention of the book appeared in 18xx"?
  • Now reads "The manuscript was discovered 177 years later..." Awadewit (talk)
  • Good. The second part just following this comment is still a bit confusing to me; maybe add "...and the story was presumably misplaced" or some such? – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it is not clear that it was - Laurette could have just kept it. We don't really know how it ended up in that box. Now reads: The fate of the manuscript was unknown until it was rediscovered 177 years later by Cristina Dazzi in the summer of 1997 ... Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any way to clue us into where and/or how the manuscript was discovered? Was it in a bread basket? Tucked away behind a painting? I'd just love to have more detail here.
  • Added this sentence: She was looking through a box of old papers, searching for "something interesting" to add to an exhibit in Pisa about the winter of 1827–28 when the poet Giacomo Leopardi visited and met with Lady Mountcashell and her daughter. - Noting terribly romantic, I'm afraid! Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Tomalin" reference isn't in the Bibliography.
  • In the extended quotes from critics, I'd prefer to have some kind of in-text lead-in. ("As Tomalin notes, blah blah..") This would be especially useful in the fourth paragraph of Style, genre and themes, which is mostly a series of such quotes.
  • In addition to this, the first three children Percy and Mary had together died. Perhaps a small readjustment of the wording here? "...the Shelleys' loss of three children is also cited as a probable influence" or some such? Referring back to the biographical info, rather than repeating it as if for the first time; seems like it would make the article more cohesive.

Fantastic work as always, Awadewit! I can see the outlines of a Mary Shelley FT in the distance. – Scartol • Tok 20:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

See above discussion for details.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  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:
    Such as is presumably possible given current scholarship
    B. Focused:
  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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Nice work. – Scartol • Tok 22:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurice_(Shelley)/GA1&oldid=216279094"