Wikipedia:Peer review/Maurice (Shelley)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maurice (Shelley)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like to take this article to WP:FAC, so please critique accordingly. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from La Pianista (talk · contribs)[edit]

Hello there! I think you've commented on the Preludes (Chopin) peer review in the days of yore. I reiterate my thanks. :-) Now...*ahem, ahem*...towards business!

  • "Told from several narrative points of view and in a melancholy tone, the story focuses on the theme of loss, particularly the separation of parents and children, which reflects the experiences of both Mary Shelley and Laurette's mother." This sentence is a little wordy. Maybe, try "Told from several narrative points of view in a melancholy tone, the story focuses on the theme of loss, particularly the separation of parents and children. This recurrent motif reflects on the experiences of both Mary Shelley and Laurette's mother."
  • "...Mary Shelley (Mary Godwin, at the time) ran off with Percy Bysshe Shelley..." Here, "eloped" would be preferable to "ran off."
  • I don't think so, since it is not clear that Mary intended to marry Percy and she didn't, in fact, marry him until several years later. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Percy's wife, Harriet, from whom he was separated, gave birth to a son around the same time." could be simplified into "Percy's estranged wife, Harriet, gave birth to a son around the same time." To avoid the repeat of "estranged," you can replace the word in the following sentece with "disaffected" or something else of the sort.
  • "Percy was estranged from his family and received little financial support from them; he was therefore hounded by creditors." "Hounded" has a quasi-colloquial feel to it. Maybe try "harassed"?
  • "The fate of the manuscript was unknown until it was rediscovered 177 years later by Cristina Dazzi in the summer of 1997 in Italy at the home of the Dazzi family, Casa Cini, in San Marcello." This could be simplified into "The fate of the manuscript was unknown until it was Cristina Dazzi rediscovered it 177 years later, in the summer of 1997 at the San Marcello home of the Dazzi family, Casa Cini."
  • I'm not sure how that is simpler, though. We still run into the problem of the all of the prepositional phrases. Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More soon... P.S.: I have edited the article a little, if permissable. :-) --LaPianista! 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't see any edits, but please go ahead! Awadewit (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from qp10qp[edit]

Another one of Awadewit's clever and valuable micro-articles. I think it's a classic Good Article rather than a Featured one, though, because of the smallness of the information. I suppose there's no difference in the criteria for either, but an étude can be just as perfect in its own right as a symphony. I think also that scrutiny at FAC might question the high proportion of background information, much of which is not directly related to Maurice, though it is certainly useful for any reader who does not know the Shelley story.

A few small queries and points:

*Not easy to suggest any extra information, but Seymour mentions Mario Curreli as having published extracts from Maurice in 1997, so I wonder if the first scholar should be given a namecheck.

  • I thought it was weird that Tomalin didn't mention that. I've added it. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she wanted a tinge more credit. Or is it sacrilege to suggest such a thing in the honourable world of scholarship! qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same year, Claire Clairmont began an affair with the poet Lord Byron and had a daughter by him, Allegra. She was at that point called Alba.
  • Do you think it is worth including that detail in this article? I deliberately left it out, but we could add a footnote. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I probably even out-nerd you on things like this: to me it is a fact, not a detail. And I look at it this way: Claire had her daughter taken away and I don't think we should take away the name she gave her as well. I think Byron had a cheek renaming her: it was another way of obliterating Claire from the child's past, and also a way of masking his own name in the child's (Alba = LB, according to Seymour). qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm properly chastised - I added the fact. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting about the name Clara. According to G&M, Byron had asked for her to be christened "Allegra" (this was 14 months after the birth, which is why I thought "Alba" was not insignificant), and Claire stuck "Clara" (her own name) on of her own accord! Good on her. qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that year the group followed Byron to Lake Geneva. They assumed he would get there first, but in fact he arrived in Geneva after them.
  • I was trying to summarize this very complicated history - do you think it is worth making this distinction in a four-paragraph background? Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just about removing a distinction, I think. qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've removed "followed". qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Switzerland, the group traveled to Italy in early 1818. They went to Italy (Milan first) from England. (They picked up Elise in Chambéry, so I suspect they didn't even pass through Switzerland on the way there.)
  • Mary Shelley wrote Maurice for Laurette Tighe on 10 August 1820. Is that just when it is dated, or does something in the manuscript indicate that it was written in one day?
  • MS apparently wrote in her journal that she wrote the story on 10 August 1820. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, a Journal entry! I looked it up and have said something about it on the article talk page. qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added the quote and responded on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. This may be broadly true, but I don't think the page cited verifies the bit about the deaths. And did Byron really think the Shelleys were to blame for the deaths of both their children, given that the first baby was so premature?
I'm having trouble running the sources down on this. It was after they left Livorno that Byron put Allegra in the convent for religious reasons, but Byron's sarcastic comments criticising the Shelley ménage seems to have been a year before (unless they were retrospective, in his exchanges with the Hoppners over the Foggis). The reason I mentioned "both" children (rather than three) was that I seem to remember that he remarked on the Shelleys' carelessness before William died, but I can't find a direct Byron comment. Will keep looking. qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seymour refers to this on p. 218, and Gittings and Manton in similar vague terms. This seems, as I thought, after Clara's death but before William's. Of course there was the later fuss over the Foggis, in which Byron said that that would be "just like them", but that isn't specific enough. qp10qp (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spark quotes Byron saying to the Hoppners (it's somewhere in Hoppner letters, I suspect, that he would have said the thing about the deaths, if he said it at all) in 1821: "The girl shall be a Christian and a married woman. As to seeing her, [Claire] may see her—under proper restrictions; but she is not to throw everything into confusion with her bedlam behaviour". qp10qp (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All dead ends. Can't find any statement by Byron about child deaths. qp10qp (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on what to do? I added this explanation for why Byron refused to let Claire see Alba/Allegra. Any ideas there? Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been combing through a book of Byron's letters, and I am coming to the conclusion that rather more has been read into his thoughts than is actually on the record. The real aspersions on the Shelleys are cast by Mr Hoppner, to whom Byron replies briefly, though he believes Hoppner (this is later, about the Naples business, not about deaths of children). I cannot find Byron actually refusing to let Claire see Allegra: he just tended to ignore her letters. He says in the letter above that she can see her, on certain conditions. And he had earlier allowed Claire to see Allegra when she turned up in Venice with Shelley, after which Allegra stayed with Claire and the Shelleys at Este for a while. So, the way I see it, within my limited ability to research this, is that though Byron had tried to make it a condition of his bringing up Allegra that Claire would never see her (or him) again, in practice, he couldn't enforce it, particularly since his mate Shelley was always in his ear about it. qp10qp (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sunstein says on p 180 that Byron (in 1820) "turned hostile to the Shelleys as well, and refused to let Allegra visit them". She doesn't source it, annoyingly; even so, not allowing Allegra to visit the Shelleys isn't quite the same as the reverse. qp10qp (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

qp10qp (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going out of town in a few hours to do, ahem, real academic work. :) I can't say I've figured out what to do here. If you do, please fix up the article. Otherwise, when I get back in a few days, I'll start looking through the books, too. Awadewit (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think I should leave it at GA? Hm. I was hoping to get all of the MS articles to FA for the featured topic. I like the symmetry of it. I can't tell you how much it would bother me to have that one little GA article amongst all the FAs. :) I'll think about it. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(wry-eyed) Vanity isn't creeping in, now, is it, Ms Scholar?! I think of articles with small scope as being natural good articles, but that is probably just me. I don't allow good articles any leeway in referencing, so it's not for me a qualitative difference. The featured topic sensibly allows both good and FA articles. qp10qp (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you've written your real-world article on Maurice, I want to update your article (you'll be far too grand for Wikipedia by then, of course) with the new information and claim the star myself! You see, it's all a cunning plan. qp10qp (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've caught out my vanity! I'll leave it at GA. Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)[edit]

  • The lead is a bit short, and could use a stronger hook.
  • I thought the lead was a good summary, but what would you add? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger hook" - we can't make the story any more important than it is. It isn't famous! Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Alba (she was later renamed "Clara Allegra" at her baptism, Byron having chosen the second name by which she became known)" It's not immediately clear that "the second name" means Allegra, not "Clara Allegra" (with Alba being the first name).
  • The Background section is surprisingly hard to follow. There's a lot of names, many of them similar, such as Clara Shelley vs. Clara Allegra Byron. A little more repetition would help a reader new to the subject to keep all of them clear.
  • I've tried to fix this - it is hard, yes. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary Shelley wrote Maurice for Laurette Tighe on, possibly as a late birthday present" I think there's a missing date in that sentence?
  • Doesn't it say Mary Shelley wrote Maurice for Laurette Tighe on 10 August 1820, possibly as a late birthday present? Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shelley recorded in her journal on 10 August 1820" is a somewhat awkard introduction to a quote. A phrasing like "Mary Shelley's journal for 10 August 1820 notes: "Thursday 10—Write a story for Laurette—Walk on the mountain—Le Buche delle Fate [fairy grottoes or caves]—The weather is warm & delightful"
  • Plot summary. "late-dead" very old-fashioned. "Dame Barnet, who taught the local children to read." odd choice of tense.
  • "lately-dead"? "newly-dead"? I'm unsure there. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dame Barnet is dead at the time of the story and did her teaching in the past. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That be my initial thoughts, aye. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. They look fine.
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Maurice_(Shelley)/archive1&oldid=1142589942"