Wikipedia:Peer review/History of a Six Weeks' Tour/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History of a Six Weeks' Tour

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm preparing this article for FAC, so I would like lots of detailed feedback. I do have have some specific questions: Are the sections ordered effectively or would another arrangement be better? Is there too much or not enough or "just right" biographical detail? Do I need to add more on "Mont Blanc"? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Comments from Yllosubmarine

Very interesting article! I like how it gives insight into both authors' lives and works. I only have a few embarrassingly minor comments/suggestions:

  • Perhaps I'm alone in this, but a short introduction to the Shelleys may help establish context in the lead. "British Romantic authors/writers" or something similar?
  • Done. Don't know how I forgot that! Clearly I think everyone knows who the Shelleys are. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Part of the genre of the Romantic travel narrative... "Part of the Romantic travel narrative genre"?
  • Percy sprains his ankle, which becomes an increasing problem—the group is forced to hire a voiture. A what-now?
  • It is a type of carriage. I've been trying to find a source so that I can write a little stub, but no luck yet. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wasn't Percy married not only when he and Mary met, but when they went on the trips? This is perhaps worth mentioning.
  • He was. Then his wife committed suicide, which is why he and Mary could marry later. Should I explain this? I've been trying to cut down the bio section, but perhaps I cut too much. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I doubt it would take too much time to mention; it would help explain why Shelley's dad was against them being together and why they did not immediately marry after meeting and falling in love. Plus, I love a good scandal. :) María (habla conmigo) 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • History of a Six Weeks' Tour is made up of three major sections: a journal, letters from Geneva, and the poem "Mont Blanc". At the beginning of the entire text is a "Preface", written by Percy Shelley. This is a repeat from the beginning of the first section. Was this intentional?
  • Yes - it is a confusing structure and I thought it was worth repeating. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now that the sections are back to back, I think it does more harm than good. That Percy wrote the preface is nowhere else, though, so perhaps it could just be rewritten so it's not so samey? María (habla conmigo) 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I've just removed that sentence and rewritten the opening of the paragraph. Argh - it is so difficult to describe this text elegantly. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I do fear that the description/plot summary became somewhat redundant halfway through the article, as the above point may suggest. A lot of what is covered in "Description" is covered elsewhere. As for the ordering, I think it could go either way, but I would prefer "Biographical background" to go before the "Description". Were I not familiar with the Shelleys, I would have been utterly confused in the first section since so much of it requires explanation about why they're traveling, what the circumstances are, etc. Perhaps it's like a novel or a film where context is required before one delves into the work itself. I also believe that more can be added to the description of the poem, especially since that particular article is currently being expanded, but I'm not sure if weight is an issue. Overall very good work, though, as per usual. I hope this helps. María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I've tried to reduce the "Description" section a bit.
  • I have moved the "Biographical background" before the "Description". I originally had it first, but the GA reviewer suggested this placement. Now I have a reason to move it back. :)
  • I have added a bit more to the description of the poem. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

As always, a fascinating read from Awadewit about a remarkable British writer. I discuss the section ordering below; I think the bio background is a good length, as is the attention given to "Mont Blanc". (Though there is a note about repetition of some items there.) Thanks for bringing me in on this; it's always a pleasure to work on an Awadewit original. =)

Also: I'm really sorry it took me so long to get to this. I'm always amazed at how quickly you blaze through Wikipedia work, A.

  • The romantic elements of the work would have hinted at the text's radical politics to nineteenth-century readers. Perhaps: "...would have hinted at the authors' radical politics..."? Is the conditional necessary here? Could we not just say: "...of the work hinted at the..."?
  • I believe this is accurate - the scholars discuss the text's radicalness in this context, not the Shelleys'. Also, I believe the conditional is appropriate since there is no proof that readers actually came to this conclusion - there is only speculation. :) However, if you think this distinction is irrelevant, we can dispense with the conditional. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I defer to you on it. Personally I think the text hints or doesn't hint, with relation to the context – regardless of whether people pick up on it or not. But it's not a big deal and I could very well be wrong, so let's just leave it. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Biographical background

  • I'm used to seeing major terms linked in the lead and then also in their first appearance of the body. I assume you feel it would be too much to link Mary and Percy again in this section? (I'm fine either way; I'm just thinking about what's usual in the rest of the wiki.)
  • With the constant rearrangement of this article, the linking as suffered. Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It as suffered? Is it Talk Like a Pirate Day? =) Looks better. (Unless I indicate otherwise below, the repairs you've made look lovely.) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been making so many typos lately! Eek. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The situation awaiting Mary Godwin was fraught with complications: she had become pregnant with a child who would soon die, she and Percy now found themselves penniless... Were these two items awaiting them, or did they know about them before getting back home? Seems like the start of this sentence might need slightly different wording.
  • Changed to: "The situation upon their return was fraught with complications". Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ...her father refused to have anything to do with her. I generally prefer the "fewer words" model. Would "...her father refused to speak to her" work here?
  • He refused to speak or see her, though. He specifically barred her from his home. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, makes sense. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ...on 30 December 1816 Percy and Mary married (two weeks after the death of Percy's first wife), healing the family rift. Two years earlier her father disapproved of their love, right? You might want to explain how this marriage healed the rift.
  • Ah! I've been trying to cut down this section. Do you think I should explain how Godwin disapproved of her violating social norms (despite his philosophical opposition) but now approved of the relationship because she was "respectable"? I left all of this out because it would add more sentences and seemed a little tangential. Awadewit (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe just add something earlier, like: "To Mary's dismay, her father disapproved of their extramarital affair and tried to thwart the relationship." Then it would make sense later for their marriage to make him happy. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - I worry this makes Godwin sound too conventional, but ah well. He was rather conventional at this moment. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Description

  • Does "Preface" really need quotation marks?
  • Since the narrative suggests that the couple involved are married (but Mary and Percy were not), should the lead indicate that at least part of it is fictionalized? Are other elements?
  • The scholarship does not go into any analysis of the fictionalization of the journey, so I can't really discuss it. Travel narratives, however, are not transparent descriptions of a journey. Think of your own video - you clearly chose to highlight some aspects of the trip and not others. Does this make it "fiction"? In a way. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, but I feel a little lost myself; does the text say "I, Mary Shelley, along with my main squeeze Percy, went on a trip..." or does it say "We traveled around Europe..." without explaining who the "we" is? I'm simply in favor of a tiny bit (a short phrase) of explanation of how the POV is oriented in the text. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Added a small explanation to both the journal and letters sections in "Description" about how the text switches between singular and plural first-person narration. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it standard practice to call Europe "the Continent"? Otherwise seems like the C should be lowercase.
  • I thought this was standard practice - maybe I'm just living in the nineteenth century, though. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well you'd know better than I would. Listen to your heart. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you worked really hard on the map, but it's nearly impossible to read without enlarging it. Any chance of getting (or having made) a map without the rivers?
  • (Stake through the heart.) In my experience on Wikipedia, most maps have to be enlarged. I actually tried to find someone to make this map before I did it myself. I think we are stuck with it for the time being. Maybe if the article appears as a TFA sometime, a nice editor will fix up the map. It didn't happen when the article was a DYK, but here's hoping. Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I must say, I find Mary Shelley's use of the passive voice ("its base, furrowed with dreadful gaps, was seen above") intensely distracting. I know it's nothing to do with you or the article, but I needed to vent. =)
  • Note: I believe this is from one of PBS's letters. Mary would never. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would need to check the source, but I seem to recall Frank being loaded with passive voice. Maybe I'm just remembering weird, tho. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Those could have been PBS's editorial changes, though. :) Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure – blame it all on the man. Why can't you be more like Sarah Palin? =) Every time I see you write "PBS's editorial changes" I think: When did Mary Shelley work for the Public Broadcasting Service? Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you've had to include it in lots of other articles (something I'm finding in the Balzac work), but perhaps we need a word or two about what the sublime is?
  • Are you suggesting that I define the sublime in the description section? I was leaving it for the "Themes" section, but perhaps an earlier definition would be good. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Added in the "Composition" section. Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Tweaked the sentence structure a bit, but the info is stellar. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • More of a philosophical question, about which I'm curious to get your take: Why put Description before Composition and publication? Seems like the latter flows more smoothly after Background, and the summary interrupts the two.
  • I originally had the order you are describing, but the GA reviewer suggested a new order. Changed back. (This article has been rearranged so many times it is ridiculous.) Awadewit (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I saw that in the discussion above right after I saved these comments. (Note to self: Read earlier PRs first.) Glad to know we both had the same instinct at first.. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Composition and publication

  • Do we need the poem "Mont Blanc" linked in both this section and "Description"?
  • Delinked in "Description". Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • (Though Frankenstein was written before History of a Six Week's Tour, the novel was not published until January 1818.) Given the nearly universal recognition of Frankie (and the fact that the article lays out when Frank was written), could we not more simply say: "Frankenstein was not published until January 1818."?
  • Some of the description in this section mirrors that given in "Description". Seems like it could be trimmed from here. (History of a Six Weeks' Tour begins with a "Preface", written by Percy Shelley, followed by the journal section. The journal consists of edited entries from the joint diary...)
  • There is some repetition, but I'm really at a loss how to introduce the specific details of the diary, for example, without first mentioning its relation to the larger work. I did try to shorten the "Description" in response to Maria's comments - does this help at all? Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I also think, given the current arrangement of sections, that the following clause could also be removed without harm: "which narrates Percy, Mary, and Claire’s 1814 six-week tour across the Continent". Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm using the "find" function and I can't find that phrase - I guess it is gone. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently. Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear on what "almost exactly paraphrased" means. Maybe it's me, but it seems likely that other folks will also be thrown.
  • Worded very closely to (as distinct from "copied verbatim"). Is this distinction unnecessary? Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it's useful – but perhaps instead we could say "only slightly paraphrased"? Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I always like to see attribution of quotes like "almost nothing of her original phrasing remains" in the sentence itself. (Who's speaking these words?)
  • The second section of the text consists of four letters and is entitled "Letters written during a Residence... Would it be weird to shorten this up to: "The second section of the text consists of four "Letters written during a Residence..."?
  • I wanted to give the entire title somewhere in the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, sure – but the repetition of "letters" is somewhat jarring. How about: The second section of the text consists of four "Letters written during a Residence of Three Months in the Environs of Geneva, in the Summer of the Year 1816".? Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You are my hero. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Aw shucks. I was trained by the best on Wikipedia. =) Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how to remedy this, especially since the previous sentence ends in "Percy Shelley". But I giggled for several minutes at the possible alternative meaning: After he drowned in 1822, Percy Shelley’s father forbade Mary Shelley from writing a memoir... I envision someone drowning and shouting warnings to Mary Shelley at the same time. =D (I know drowning is no laughing matter, but the juxtaposition is too much.)
  • New version: After Percy Shelley drowned in 1822, his father forbade Mary Shelley from writing a memoir or biography of the poet. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre

  • It's just my personal preference, but I'd love to see a reference to Robinson Crusoe in the paragraph about travel narratives. (It was a very important early novel, after all.)
  • Ah, but this would require introducing the distinction between travel narrative and novel and how the travel narrative influenced the early novel. Considering the Tour isn't a novel, I'm not sure this is that helpful. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, okay. Pout. =) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ...often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain while abroad. Maybe it would be a little more precise to say "...of Britain from abroad"?
  • The Grand Tour was celebrated as educational but also condemned as trivial. I assume different groups of people were doing the celebrating/condemning? Or, as the following sentence seems to suggest, the condemnation was related to what kind or travel people were doing? In either case, I'd prefer to see a tiny bit more explanation in this sentence. ("celebrated by many, condemned by others" or "...condemned as trivial when the trip consisted of...")
  • I rearranged the sentence to make it clearer what was being condemned and celebrated. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd really like to see an in-sentence attribution for the quote which begins "instead of exchanging knowledge with learned scientists..."
  • This quote is gone now, anyway. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh. I liked it. Alas! Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • During the Napoleonic Wars, the Continent was closed to British travellers and the Grand Tour came under increasing criticism, particularly from radicals such as William Godwin who challenged its class associations. Not too clear on what is meant by the last phrase here.
  • New version: During the Napoleonic Wars, the Continent was closed to British travellers and the Grand Tour came under increasing criticism, particularly from radicals such as William Godwin who criticized its aristocratic connections. Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • A new form of travel emerged—Romantic travel—which focused on developing "taste", rather than acquiring objects, and having enthusiastic "experiences". Could "enthusiastic" also be in quotes? Seems like the phrase, rather than just the final word, is an operative expression.
  • Nice. Was the phrase "enthusiastic experiences" used? Seems like it would work better as a single quote, rather than two separate ones. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Corinne is referred to with the past tense ("depicted") while History is in the present ("embodies"). Shouldn't they be in the same tense?
  • I suppose Corinne is in the past tense because the first part of that sentence is in the past tense. It seemed strange to switch tenses in mid-sentence. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I took a whack at it; feel free to change or revert if it doesn't work for you. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm just blocked right now - too much grading, I think. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I know that feeling! I've got stacks of Creative Writing I need to work on; at the moment we're watching Barton Fink in class, tho. What a glorious film. Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • How would you feel about putting the paragraph break before "A new form of travel emerged..."? Seems like the last two sentences there fit more closely with the following paragraph than with the earlier one.
  • I'd rather see an excerpt from the History itself demonstrating the Romantic nature of the text, instead of something from an essay 10 years later.
  • ...she juxtaposes her distaste for the German working class to her delight with French servants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think things are "juxtaposed ... with", rather than "to".
  • Mary Shelley is aesthetically repelled by the Germans and therefore excludes them. Shelley compares herself to the non-discriminating Claire Clairmont... These two sentences seem odd next to each other. Maybe a transition of some kind is in order?
  • Added in: Unlike the non-discriminating Claire Clairmont, Shelley feels free to make judgments of the scenes around her. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a number of readers will be confused by the difference between the Romantic travelogue and the romance. Perhaps a word of clarification would be useful toward the end of this section? (I can't think of how to word it, but you're often better at that sort of thing than I.)
  • I've gone back to the article that talks about how Shelley uses "romance" in the Tour. Unfortunately, the author discusses several different romance traditions and that discussion is anything but clear. It was actually quite frustrating. I picked out at least four different definitions of "romance". I'm not sure that adding these definitions would really help. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It sounds very confusing. Maybe for simplicity's sake, we should just put the two sections which refer to Romantic/Romance themes/genres/whatever near each other. That way a transition of sorts could be set up at the start of the paragraph which currently starts The journal is also threaded through...: "This use of romantic elements appears elsewhere in the journal..." Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have now just described it as "medieval and Gothic romance tradition". I have simply lumped them all together (gulp!). However, at least this is distinct from "Romantic". Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If any of our literature professors from grad school come looking and notice the lack of specificity, we'll blame it on an anonymous IP, okay? Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Shelley also references Don Quixote, but he was "famous for his delusions of romance", as Labbe points out. Because there's another famous (male) author named Shelley, I wonder if it's necessary to put "Mary Shelley" at the start of this sentence. Or maybe we could get away with just "She also references..."? Also, if the emphasis here is original, it's worth mentioning in the footnote.
  • Changed to "she". Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Some more tense-switching, this time about the same work: Earlier we have "Shelley also references Don Quixote...", but then we have "Mary Shelley’s allusions to Cervantes's Don Quixote (1605) not only placed her text in a romance tradition, they also hinted..." We should have one tense for all, right? (I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I just always feel weird editing your work, as if there's something that I'm missing.)
  • ...it provided a model for her daughter's work. Insofar as Wollstonecraft is previously referred to as "Mary Shelley's mother", the "her" in "her daughter's work" here is a bit confusing. (We also go back to "her mother" in the next sentence.) Maybe I'm just picking nits, but it feels like a bit too much jumping between generational referents.
  • Changed "her daughter's" to "Mary Shelley's". Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ...allowing Mary Shelley to present political opinions through personal anecdote and the picturesque. Okay, I just have to know: Is this alliteration affected with acknowledgment aforethought, or am I asinine in my assumption?
  • Totally accidental. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely accidental! C'mon, are you playing the game or not? =) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Themes

  • I think a brief note about the application of "liberal" to literature is useful at the start so that the specific explanation here will make more sense. (The link helps a little, but not enough for the uninitiated to make the leap.)
  • Reworded: History of a Six Weeks' Tour is part of a liberal reaction to recent history. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • ...and ends by celebrating the natural sublime. Perhaps: "...and ends by celebrating the sublime in nature"? Are they two different things?
  • The third canto of Byron’s Childe Harold's Pilgrimage and William Wordsworth’s 1850 The Prelude follow a similar course. Are these well-known to be liberal texts? Maybe indicate this?
  • There is great debate over the politics of these works - I hesitate to make so bold a claim. I'm simply following the essay in saying that they follow this same trajectory, which can be viewed as liberal. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough. (Political tangent: Maybe we could get Sarah Palin's take on these books; she could describe them as Liberal Elite texts.) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Whenever I see a quote without in-sentence attribution (especially in an article about a text), I assume it's from the text being discussed: The journal begins with a "view of Napoleon’s shattered political power". I don't think it's fair here to expect the reader to follow the footnote to realize it's from Moskal. (I assume it's from Moskal, not something from Shelley in Moskal.)
  • ...and grieves over the "ruin" brought to a small French town by the Cossacks. The name and link appear later in this section, but it seems fitting to bring it up here, then repeat later without the link.
  • It seems odd to me that the "Genre" section is so very long and "Themes" is relatively short. I would expect the reverse. On the other hand, you've been doing all the research so I trust that you've represented the scholarship on the issue.
  • There is far more discussion of the genre in the published scholarship. I think this is because it is difficult to find unifying themes among the book's disparate parts. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Like I say, you're the one who's done the research. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • The blockquote which begins "Here a small obelisk is erected to the glory of Rousseau..." is three lines; my understanding is that blockquotes should only be used for four lines or more.
  • It was four lines on my screen - I guess it all depends on your display. :) I think it is blocky enough to be separated. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure. I just don't want to see it assaulted at FAC. Maybe you should have a note: "Make sure you read this article using Firefox at 1024 x 768 resolution!" Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait until you see the nominating statement - there are going to be so many caveats. :( Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Like what? Scartol • Tok 16:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Mary Shelley also included positive portrayals of the French people. More past tense.
  • Re: the final quote in this section: Hey, MS! Welcome to run-on city. Population: Thou. I'd love to see Tony1 attack her writing with a red pen. =)
  • Welcome to the nineteenth century! I love it! :) Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I love that sort of thing, but sometimes I think I just love the way it makes me feel erudite and sophisticated. (Like owning a set of Dusty Old Literature Books.) Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I want a perfume that smells like Dusty Old Books. Awadewit (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception

  • ...and when Charles Ollier, the co-publisher, went out of business, his inventory included 92 copies of the work. When did this happen? Soon afterwards? Years later?
  • Her comments may have been self-interested, however. I think this is self-evident and can be struck.
  • I'd rather leave it in. The source makes rather a big deal of it. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Apropos of almost nothing: "gracefulness" is a word which really cheeses me off. What's wrong with "grace"? I get really irritated when someone takes a perfectly good noun, then adds a suffix to make it an adjective, then another suffix to make it a noun again. Yeesh! Sorry, venting.
  • Well, I get annoyed by the "little volume" bit. You know how women can only write "little" works. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No doubt. Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems like the last paragraph should mention explicitly how History of a Six Weeks' Tour fits into the literary world's reawakening of Mary Shelley's work.
  • Except I can't find anything on that. It seemed like this was better than nothing, after the other FACs I did on MS's minor works. People demanded something on the recent reception, but all I can get is this general stuff. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey, what's there is what's there. If it ain't, we can't just make it up. (Until we start the Department of Original Literary Research for the Purposes of Filling In Wikipedia Deficits at Harvard University. Do you want to write up the prospectus, or shall I?) =D Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with this! Kudos for all your hard work on it. Scartol • Tok 18:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)