Talk:History of a Six Weeks' Tour/GA1

GA Review

This looks like a thorough and well written treatment of a unique work of literature. It is mostly well organized and well written, and seems essentially free of any major problems. The areas that need some improvement are:

General comments

• The article should start with a synopsis and description of History of a Six Weeks' Tour. Reading it from start to finish I was entirely lost in the Background section; it wasn't until midway through Composition and publication that I began to grasp what the Tour was about. Even at the end I lacked a strong picture of the actual content and structure of the work.

• This is a very difficult work to describe. If the article began with a description of work, which includes references to the travels, that would seem odd because the travels would seem out of the blue. Usually, therefore, such explanations begin with the biography which is the least confusing and then move into the description of the text. Would moving the description of the text before the "Composition and publication" help? I don't think I can make the structure of the work any clearer as the article repeats several times that there are three parts to the work, but how can I improve the description of the content? Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've moved the section. I think it works better - what do you think? Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. You might think of this in terms of the inverted pyramid: the subject of the article is the work, so begin by describing its broad structure and topcis, and then supplement with further details and background.

You could probably move the last four paragraphs of Composition and publication before Background—as they stand—and suffer no ill effects. The only real changes needed are, in the first sentence, to specify that the journal is from a tour through France, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland; and that the letters from Geneva are from a later trip. So long as you're talking about a trip and not the trip, readers will not stumble on the generalization and expect to find more details further along in the article.

You could then continue by describing the three sections in more detail or diving into the Background. And this is the key; if the Background section appears before a section describing the work itself it will always be confusing and feel malapropos. Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Typically, this is indeed what one would do, but in this case, I do think that beginning with the "Background" is the best choice. I think that moving the "Description" above the "Composition and publication" has improved the problem you identified. I was modelling the "Background" section on articles like La Peau de chagrin. Maybe once the section has been cut down, it won't seem so intrusive. Let's try that. Awadewit (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, subtle; pointing out the FA as an example. Since I'm not quote so subtle, let me point out that we're here having the same argument as that happening on Samuel Johnson; except here it's me arguing that the biography drowns out the literary while you're taking Ottava Rima's position. :-)

Even in it's shortened version, the Background section—where it's currently placed—still bothers me. Apart from seeming misplaced I have trouble relating most of its facts to the Tour, even when looking specifically for relevancy between it and the following sections. If it appeared later in the article it would make sense as providing additional background to help place the work in a context; but where it is it just leaves the impression that the focus of the article is on the lives and relationships of the Shellys (which, by the way, they also happened to write about).

In any case, with the changes you have implemented (trimming Background and moving up some description of the work) I'm willing to trust that your judgment is better than mine on this point. I would suggest, however, that if you intend ask for a Peer Review of this before FAC, you ask for feedback specifically on this point (if for no other reason than because I've argued quite vehemently against its current placement, and getting a second opinion to support your position can only be good).

The other open points are minor, so unless you'd prefer to go another couple of rounds on this, I'm inclined to pass this as GA. If you need a contrary opinion to help you improve the article further I'd be happy to continue this particular point on the article Talk page. --Xover (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Does everyone know about Samuel Johnson? :( Ok, I have trimmed the "Background" still further so that hopefully everything seems a bit more relevant to the article and I have placed the "Description" above the "Background" section. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. With all the WikiDrama and messages on user talk pages flying around, it's damn near impossible to not be aware of it and it was bound to cross my Watchlist sooner or later. :-)

More to the point, Ottava asked me to review the SJ article with a particular view to the biography/literature balance (you can find my view on that subject on his talk page, should you be so inclined).

In any case, I—unsurprisingly enough—think the new order of the sections and the trimmed Biographical background work much better. Do, please, still feel free to seek other opinons on the matter. I promise I won't be offended. :-) --Xover (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I missed some discussion of its impact. After giving sometime excessive detail about the people and their travails, the article stops abruptly after the third newspaper review. Has it been published since? Has it been studied? Has it influenced a genre or individual works? What is its relation to the Shelley canon? Is it as popular as Frankenstein?

• The book had no impact. In the "Composition and publication" section, the article explains how MS edited and republished the work, but as far as I know it was never republished after that until the 20th century. The work was not studied much until recently, but it is very hard to find a source that actually says that (it is obvious to scholars). The work is not nearly as popular as Frankenstein - again, this is so obvious to scholars that they don't need to say it. I will try to find some sources that at least imply this so that I can add this in to the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I found some general statements on this front. Still looking for something more specific. Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• In a quick skim of the sources, I'm not finding anything more specific. I was pretty sure if I had seen it on my first time through the research, I would have included it. All we can include is this general material, but I think the general material is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yes, that does very nicely. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The footnotes seem excessive. There are several citations to the same work on the same page that are not combined to a named ref, and several cites to consecutive pages of the same work that could probably be beneficially combined to a single multi-page cite.

• I actually dislike combining references while I am still developing an article as it often causes problems later when material is removed. As this is not a requirement, I would prefer to leave the notes as is. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. Believe me, I sympathize completely. :-) --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Bibliography be References?

• I thought there was a variety of choices here and I've used "Bibliography" for all of my FAs so far. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, afaik both are equally acceptable. My impression is just that References is the more common. *shrug* --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Why is “[Shelley, Mary and Percy Shelley]” in brackets in the references?

• Because their names are not included in the original publication information for the book. This indicates that the information is an editorial addition. Awadewit (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. IMO it would be preferable to leave that detail in the text and just omit the brackets; but as it doesn't, afaict, breach either MOS or GA criteria that would be entirely your call. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just for your info, it is how MLA style requires known authors whose names are not included in the original publication to be cited. (This bibliographic list is cited in MLA style.) Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lede

• The full title in bold text in the lede is distracting and seems excessive. Perhaps simply save the full title for further down in the article?

• I don't think that it is a good idea to hide the full title. Just because titles were longer and more elaborate in the nineteenth century doesn't mean we should not include them in the lead. I think we should show readers how different tiles have become, actually. We should highlight these historical differences. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I disagree with you on that point (the practice on Shakespeare articles, where this is a common issue, is that the title is actually marketing copy and to use the familiar short versions of the play titles), but this clearly isn't an issue sufficient to run up against GA criteria. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The image of the title page is a little bland and boring. Could something more visually grabbing be used instead?

• Again, I like showing the original title page, as we do in the articles for other written works. It is important for readers to see that nineteenth-century works did not have lavishly illustrated title pages or covers like late twentieth-century works. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't mean leave it out entirely; I just meant it might be better to use a more “grabbing” and colorful image at the very top of the article. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the image of Mont Blanc to the top of the article. Awadewit (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• …its authors' evident desire to develop a sense of taste and distinguish themselves from those around them. Needs a cite.

• This is covered in the article and therefore does not need a cite. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• It was the “evident” that tickled me funny. :-) --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Both uses of “evident” here tickles my weasel-word detector, but possibly just for æstethic reasons. Can it be phrased differently?

• Good catch - I just removed the first one - it seemed redundant anyway. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• …(particularly one largely authored by a woman)… superficially contradicts the information previously given (both wrote it; she, mainly, edited it). It might also be slightly jarring for modern readers to have her gender singled out as significant in the context. Could some temporal reference perhaps be inserted in the vicinity (e.g. “…unusual for a travel narrative [of the time]…”)?

• Doesn't contradict - first, it says she largely authored it (accurate); second, she did mostly write it - the journal and two of the letters are hers - that is the bulk of the text. I have added a temporal reference. Awadewit (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean factually contradicts; I mean it reads oddly because it appears to contradict the earlier information. Or put another way, the first paragraph puts the authorship as balanced, while the second tilts it sharply in Mary's direction (and in a parenthtical aside to boot). Perhaps the earlier paragraph could swap the clauses—“though edited by both, the text was organised by Mary Shelley”—to avoid this? --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, yes, I see. I have changed the earlier sentence to say: A combination of the couple's diary entries and letters, the text was primarily written and organised by Mary Shelley, though edited by both. - Does that help? Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, yes. That does the trick. --Xover (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Background

• “Mary Godwin and Percy Shelley fell in love in 1814.” How sweet. Now why would the reader care about that again? :-) This whole section reads a bit like an abbreviated romantic novel; far too much information on the people and their relationships and too little on the subject of the article. It should either be recast such that the History of a Six Weeks' Tour is the main focus, or trimmed mercilessly to just the bits directly relevant to the subject (the rest belongs in a different article, or conceivably in a different section in this article).
  • The first para can be reduced to a single sentence: Mary and Percy were lovers, and her father opposed the affair, so they met in secret and eventually left for France.
    • No, it is important that PBS wanted to meet Godwin and that Godwin was her father - note how Godwin's politics comes up later in the article. Also note how Claire Clairmont's journals are mentioned in the composition section. She must be introduced as well. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The second para's first sentence is relevant, the rest seems malappropos without something to tie it to the Tour. Most of the para takes place after they've returned from the tour and does not appear to be directly relevant to its preparation or publication.
  • Ditto the third para. It also feels awkward that they “…planned to spend the summer with the poet Lord Byron…”; there's an implicit “, but…” there.
  • The fourth para could be omitted alltogether.
    • I wasn't sure that omitting everything that happened between the two trips was such a good idea. I thought it might give the reader the wrong impression about the Shelleys lives. It would make it look like nothing happened during that time, when in fact it was chock full of events. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The fifth para could be left as is.
• (Responding to the above in one place; it's actually a single point:) I do think the Background section needs to be trimmed, but provided it isn't the first section the trimming doesn't really need to be “merciless” as I put it above. Looking at the sections it should probably come thrid or fourth and retain most of the information currently there. It should be copyedited with a view to avoid focussing on the relationship, unless it can tie the relationship into the work somehow. For instance, down in Description is mentioned that Mary alters the text to suggest that the couple in the narrative are married. There must be more such connections between the work and the real life relationship that can be mentioned to make clear the relevance of the things discussed in the Background section. If it's relevant that Percy wanted to meet Godwin, then explain why he wanted to meet him; as it stands it reads like that was just the MacGuffin that put him where he needed to be to fall in love with Mary.

• I've tried to streamline this section. Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Composition and publication

• “At what point she decided to include the letters from the 1816 Geneva trip and Percy Shelley's poem "Mont Blanc" is unclear. However, by 28 September, the journal and the letters were considered part of one text and by the middle of October she was making fair copies for the press.” Unclear, and awkward transition. Why/how were they considered “part of one text”? And how do the fair copies for the press relate to the singular/plural texts?

• First the travel book was just the notebooks/journal (as the first sentence of the section states) from the 1814 trip. Then she decided to add the 1816 letters and "Mont Blanc" into the book - making one text. How can I make this clearer? In October she was making copies of all all of these things for the press - this one text. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's try playing with punctuation a little: At what point she decided to include the letters from the 1816 Geneva trip and Percy Shelley's poem "Mont Blanc" is unclear, but by 28 September the journal and the letters were considered part of one text. By the middle of October she was making fair copies for the press and at the same time, she was correcting and transcribing Frankenstein for publication and Percy was working on The Revolt of Islam. Something like that maybe? --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Changed to a very similar version. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Percy probably corrected and copyedited the journal section as Mary did his letters Unclear. What's Mary doing to his letters? Is Percy correcting and copyediting his own journal or both of their journals?

• Percy copyedited the journal and Mary copyedited his letters. It is a joint journal - that is, they both wrote in it. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. That there's just one journal which they both wrote in didn't come across in the article, at least not sufficiently clear for me to understand it. Since, at least for me, “journal” in this context connotes “diary” (i.e. a personal diary), it might be a good idea to spell this out. As for the division of labour, how about “…Percy probably corrected and copyedited the journal section [while] Mary did [the same for] his letters, making History of a Six Weeks' Tour a co-edited text.” Here as suggests like, where while suggests both and and concurrently. Either works, but I prefer while (i.e. your call). --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have now described the notebooks as a "joint diary" in the first sentence of the section. I adopted your suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• However, it was not until 12 and 13 November that notices appeared in the papers announcing publication Awkward. Was it actually published then, or did the newspapers merely announce it? Does Moskal hedge here because there's uncertainty about the publication date?

• These are the two dates on which publication announcements appeared. As the previous sentence indicated, the pre-publication announcements came out earlier. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right, but when was the Tour actually published? Unless there's some special reason to hedge, just saying it was not until 12 and 13 November that notices appeared in the papers announcing publication[it was published] is clearer and simpler. The interesting event is the publication, not the annoucement(s). --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• But the only evidence we have for the publication date is the announcements. In the early nineteenth century, this is the primary way we establish when books were published. This is how readers knew about new publications, too, by the way. [Insert long speech about changes in publishing if you want.] Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do the sources hedge and say, e.g., “Was announced in the papers, but we don't really know when it was actually published”? If this is the primary way to establish time of publication, and there is no special reason to soften the statement, then just say it was published then and let WP:V handle the qualification. As an example, Shakespeare's baptism was 26 April, and it's tradition that he was born 3 days prior, but the sources are carefull to qualify this as supposition because there is significant doubt about its accuracy. If the case is the same here then the article can't claim a specific publication date; but if the sources just phrase it as "It was published 12th or 13th of November because that's when the papers announced it”—or otherwise in any way support it—then just saying it was published at this date is much preferable. As it stands, the phrasing in the article introduces uncertainty about the date, but doesn't explain why we're not sure. --Xover (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• The source doesn't explain everything I did. It assumes the reader knows nineteenth-century printing practices (the source is a scholarly edition). We can either leave the statement as is (which is an accurate reflection of the source) or we can change it to "published" (which is a more accessible version). Take your pick between precision and accessibility. Awadewit (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unless published is actually wrong or not supported by the source, I would say that's much the preferable choice. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 3 September 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". Ah, now we finally get to know something about the work itself. Why isn't this (and the three following paras) the first after the lede?

• Because the reader would not know what journals or what travels to Geneva we were talking about. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• See above. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I still think the organization, with the reduced "Background" section, is acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Almost all of the passages describing the sublime are in Percy’s words.[25] for When Mary turned to her own entries I assume the “for” is a stray?

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• When Mary turned to her own entries, however, she completely altered them: she removed material and totally revised—"almost nothing of her original phrasing remains". Wordy. How about When Mary turned to her own entries, however, she completely altered them revised them significantly: she removed material and totally revised—"almost nothing of her original phrasing remains".

• Better - changed. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• She even included sections of Claire Clairmont’s journal in the History of a Six Weeks' Tour. Awkward transition. Join it with the previous sentence perhaps?

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• journal notebooks exhibit....Furthermore Are those four periods in the source? WP:ELLIPSIS

• No, they are not in the original source, and according to the MOS, ellipsis do not go inside brackets: "When an ellipsis (...; see below) is used to indicate material removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed." Awadewit (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• I assumed as much, but it made me wonder. I think the MOS suggests three dots, even if four is accepted, and surrounding space except at the beginning or end of the quote. Use three periods and a space after perhaps? Retain the fourth (first) period and put a space after it too if the elision is of sentences (i.e. if the first sentence is complete). Like thus: “[…]notebooks exhibit. ... Furthermore[…]” (the bracketed ellipsis being my meta-ellipsis. getting complicated here. ;D). --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I find the MOS confusing on this point and ever-changing. I tend to put in my ellipsis where appropriate and let people change them if they so desire. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know if you would like me to take a crack at it. --Xover (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Description

• …describe the sublime aspects to be seen around Mont Blanc… There seems to be a word missing here. The sublime aspects of what?

• This is correct. There was an aesthetic movement called the sublime around this time and this is how it is written about. Awadewit (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink it perhaps? --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Linked. Awadewit (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In Letter IV, "S" writes of Mont Blanc Do we know who “S” is? If so, give the name; no need to make the reader recall which one this initial is.

• This is tricky - Two of the letters are signed "M" and two are signed "S". As the "Composition" section explains, the two "M" letters are primarily by Mary Shelley and the two "S" letters are primarily by Percy Shelley, but they were essentially co-written with all of the editing and whatnot, thus in the "Description" section, I chose to revert to the "S" designation of the text. Please understand that the authorship of this text is very tricky. Awadewit (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Were this at FAC I might have quibbled that it should either be straight out attributed to one of them, or the attribution problem explained, but in terms of GA criteria it should be acceptable. You're right, that's quite hard to convey without going into excessive detail. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Genre

• Detailed travel books, including personal travel narratives, began to be published and became quite popular in the eighteenth century. How popular is quite?

• The next sentence is: Over 1,000 individual travel narratives and travel miscellanies were published between 1660 and 1800. It is incredible to have such a specific figure for eighteenth century publishing. I think this is sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Replace the period with a colon, and drop the “quite” perhaps? Detailed travel books, including personal travel narratives, began to be published and became popular in the eighteenth century: over 1,000 individual travel narratives and travel miscellanies were published between 1660 and 1800. --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In 1826, …, Mary Shelley later wrote In 1826 or later?

• Removed "later". Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not everything she encounters is beautiful… The change of tense from the previous paragraph is jarring.

• That may be, but this is the correct tense. The previous paragraph is describing history and this paragraph is in the "literary present". This is correct. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Then perhaps the preceeding sentence In 1826, in a review essay entitled "The English in Italy", Mary Shelley wrote: should be changed to In 1826, in a review essay entitled "The English in Italy", [she writes]:? --Xover (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Not in this case, since we are emphasizing that she wrote this in 1826, in the past. It is tricky. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. The paragraph before the blockquote and the one following (the Not everything she encounters… one) 1) use a different tense than the rest of the Genre section, and 2) switches between tenses; which in effect makes it a bit hard to follow. The sentence I've mentioned here stands out because we transition from past tense in all of the preceeding paragraphs, to present tense in the para before the quote, switching briefly back to past tense (for an event that actually takes place in the future, relative to the current place in the timeline!), then back to present tense with Not everything…, and then back to past tense again. None of this is actually wrong, but it does make it hard to follow. I'm afraid I have no better suggestions for fixing it than what I'ev allready provided above, and as this isn't a sufficiently serious problem to be in conflict with criterion 1a, if you'd like to leave it as it is for now I've no objection. Were this FAC I would probably consider it relevant to FA criteria 1a, but I'm sure you know much better than I what's likely to be sufficient there. :-) --Xover (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have tried to fix this by rewording some places. I have also copyedited the entire article again for good measure. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, yes; that flows much better. Nicely done. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• For example, one reviewer wrote positively, "now and then a French phrase drops sweetly enough from [the author’s] fair mouth". Does the reader really need to have the positive spelled out for them?

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• However, both French quotations in History of a Six Weeks' Tour challenge the use usually made of this device. Wordy and awkward. “…the common use…” perhaps? And “this device” is unclear; are phrases in French really “a device”? And what use are they usually put to, since the examples are counter-examples?

• I've tried to explain this better. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, much clearer. --Xover (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception

• …received three major reviews, mostly favorable. In three hundred years it's received only three major reviews?

• These are the contemporary reviews and, yes, this is all it has received. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Percy Shelley discovered in April or Mary of 1820… May?

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• …truly delightful n the colour… Sic?

• Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully these suggestions are sufficient to quickly improve the article. --Xover (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)