Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Shelley/archive1

Mary Shelley

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
We have listed this article for peer review because we would like to hear the comments and advice of objective reviewers in advance of a submission for FAC. Many thanks to anyone who takes the trouble to review the article: we will attend to reviews promptly. qp10qp (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Awadewit (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Markus Poessel

As Awadewit knows, I approach her topics as a layperson. Hence no comments on whether or not the bibliography is adequate or complete, just general comments on the text:

• Gut feeling: the lead seems too long, compared with the overall length of the article.

• According to WP:LEAD, we are about right. Perhaps you could say what feels long and we could adjust it? Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "encouraging her to believe in his liberal political theories" - for some reason, that grates a bit. Possibly because "believe in... theories" seems to put this into the faith category. Unless that is explicitly what is meant, you might want to change this.

• Changed to "adhere". Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I know it's a bit awkward what with the name-change and with Percy Bisshe in the picture, but as far as I recall the MOS, person's should be referred to by last names. There change between "Mary", "Mary Godwin", "Mary Shelley" even in the lead is somewhat confusing.

• We can't refer to Mary Shelley as "Shelley" per the MOS since that would often confuse her with Percy Shelley. We have thus elected to refer to her as "Mary Shelley" or "Mary" when necessary to distinguish her from Percy. We have chosen to refer to her as "Mary Godwin" during the portion of her life when she was not married to Percy Bysshe Shelley. This seemed particularly important, as the marriage was such a contentious issue. (Note: Some old, unenlightened scholarship refers to Mary Shelley as "Mary" or "Mrs. Shelley" and Percy Bysshe Shelley as "Shelley". We don't want to emulate that!) Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Similar for the husband, of course. Why is he sometimes "Percy Bisshe Shelley", sometimes just "Percy Shelley"?

• For flow - Qp, should we standardize this? Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe we can look at this at the end of the Peer review. We probably only need to use the middle name in parts of the article where Percy Florence Shelley is being mentioned. qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "spent a famous summer" - unless the summer is famous for something unrelated, should this be "famously spent a summer"?

• Changed. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The last decade of her life was dogged by illness, probably caused by the brain tumour that killed her at the age of 53." - slight tension with the tenses, I think. Perhaps "the brain tumour that was to kill her at the age of 53"? Otherwise, it sounds a bit as if the tumour killed her and, yes, that somehow made her life difficult.

• Changed. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Scholars have shown increasing interest in her literary output, particularly in the novels" - sounds a bit as if Frankenstein was neither part of her literary output, nor a novel

• Now reads "in her other novels". Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that is a complete fix. "Scholars have shown increasing interest in the whole corpus of her work, particularly in her other novels," or something like that"? Or is Frankenstein not counted as part of her "literary output"? Markus Poessel (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried: "Scholars have shown increasing interest in her literary output, particularly in her novels, which also include ...". The "also" refers to the just-mentioned Frankenstein. qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Lardner is probably not well-known enough to a general audience to be able to get away with mere mention of his last name when first he occurs in the text

• Doesn't he have a great first name - Dionysius? Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, they just don't make names like that any more. Markus Poessel (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would think that "childbed fever" is more widely known than "puerperal fever", and hence should be used here.

• Is it really the same thing? My sources both say "puerperal fever", not "childbed fever", and since I am no expert in these matters, I am hesitant to change the wording unless I can somehow verify that they are the same thing. My quick search of the internet suggests that they are the same thing. What do you all think? Awadewit (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't know what it was, followed the wikilink, and was given "childbed fever" as a synonym. That's my story, and I'm sticking with it. Markus Poessel (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I find "puerperal fever" cropping up a lot in history books, but not "childbed fever". qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should stick with puerperal fever. I've checked even more books now and they all say that, rather than childbed fever. We all know how reliable the internets are. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some looking of my own. Literally, the puerpera are the six weeks or so after bed – so it's a technical term for "childbed". And if you go to the CDC website you can find, among other mentions, this article which references Semmelweis article on childbed fever in its account for puerperal fever. Sure, it seems to be an old-fashioned term, but I still think that it is more widely understood than puerperal fever. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that we have "puerperal fever" in our sources. I think we have no choice but to keep it. qp10qp (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "However, because he revealed her affairs" - I remember that part, but for those who don't, it's not totally clear that this revelation was part of the aforementioned Memoirs.

• Now reads: "However, because he revealed Wollstonecraft's affairs and her illegitimate child, the Memoirs were seen as shocking and in poor taste." Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Small tweak: "because they revealed Wollstonecraft's affairs..." Markus Poessel (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted to: "However, because the Memoirs revealed Wollstonecraft's affairs and her illegitimate child, they were seen as shocking and in poor taste". qp10qp (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Although Mary Godwin read these memoirs at some point, she was raised to cherish her mother's memory and indeed frequently read her books." - this sounds as if reading those memoirs and being raised to cherish her memory could not go together, which seems to me to underestimate the human psyche. Or do we have explicit testimony from her that, yes, reading the memoirs was a blow to the cherished memories she had, second-hand, of her mother?

• I think this is more of a statement of historical context. It was an unusual choice for Godwin to write these Memoirs as well as give them to his daughter and it was unusual for Mary Shelley not to feel ashamed of her mother. Mary Wollstonecraft was reviled as a whore, but Mary Shelley worshiped her and the youthful Godwin (as did Percy Bysshe Shelley). This was a remarkable stand to take at the time. I think perhaps we need to make this context clearer. I will think this over. Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed it to: "Mary Godwin read these memoirs and her mother's books, and she was raised to cherish her mother's memory". There's no evidence that she or Godwin had a problem reconciling the two; what shocked other people, they found cherishable. Her first reading of Wollstonecraft's works seems to be undocumented, but that she knew them is plain. qp10qp (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Although William Godwin was often deeply in debt during Mary's childhood, the letters of his housekeeper and nurse, Louisa Jones, suggest that Mary's earliest years were happy ones." - seems to be similarly jumping to conclusions. Tell me more: did his being in debt lead to inescapable hardships, sure to impinge on any person's childhood happiness? Otherwise, I'd just chalk this up as a nother data point that happiness is not totally dependent on having money, and change the "Although".

• We try to describe some of these hardships in the next paragraph - being in perpetual debt, for example. Should some reorganization take place? Awadewit (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• That might be a good idea. I think that's the part of the text I thought to be too focused on Godwin. A reorganization with a view of making it more about Mary would, I think, be an improvement. Markus Poessel (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Qp reworded this and I've shortened it. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the new Mrs Godwin was quick-tempered and quarrelled frequently with her husband;[6][note 2] but the marriage was a success" - here, on the other hand, I would be curious to know by what criteria a marriage characterized by frequent quarrels is judged to be a success, in this context

Ha ha. This is a very intriguing matter: the quarrels, bad temper, etc. seem to have bothered Godwin's friends, who document them, more than Godwin himself: the couple loved each other and stayed together with no marital crises. We must try to find a less jarring way of saying this, perhaps. qp10qp (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now reworded it to: "Most of Godwin’s friends disliked his new wife, describing her as quick-tempered and quarrelsome; but Godwin was devoted to her, and the marriage was a success". qp10qp (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK. Markus Poessel (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "However, the business did not turn a profit and" - would, I think, read more smoothly with a comma before the "and"

• Added. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Godwin admitted he was not educating the children according to Mary Wollstonecraft's philosophy" - here, a quick description of what educating them according to MW's philosophy would have meant would be helpful. More helpful, I think, than the detailed description of why and how Godwin slid into debt, and avoided prison - that, I think, could be summarized a bit more tightly in this article

• I'm not sure. Since Godwin did not educate the children according according to MW's philosophy, I'm not sure how important it is. We could link to some of MW's works. However, Godwin's finances are important for his and Mary Shelley's relationship with Percy Shelley. I agree the description of the finances should be tightened, though. I will work on this. (This is a very complicated area, by the way.) Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• The financial section has been shortened. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• If it's important enough to mention, it's probably important enough to explain. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a link; more than that is excessive for this article, I think, since we want to spend time discussing what he actually did do! Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Image: was Mary born/raised in/on the Polygon? That's what the image caption sounds like. I'm pretty sure that what's meant is "The Polygon in Somers Town; Mary was born in Somers Town and grew up there", but given the caption, that's not a hundred percent clear

• Mary was born in the Polygon and spent her early years there. I'm not sure how to make this clearer - should we give precise dates? Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence is accurate as it is: she was born and spent her earliest years in the Polygon, Somers Town. qp10qp (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it was really the Polygon itself, not Somers Town in general. No problem, leave as is, then. Markus Poessel (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In June 1812, William Godwin sent Mary to stay with the family of the radical William Baxter" - unless there are several Baxters, this one distinguished from the others by his radicality, this should probably be "the radical, William Baxter". Also, for a more general readership, used to "radical" more as a qualifier of something else than a descriptor of its own, I think it would be helpful to be slightly more explicit.

"The radical, William Baxter," would suppose that there was only one radical, called William Baxter. I have now put " dissenting family" to add another qualifier, but there's a limit to how much one can say about a passing individual, particularly as Godwin never explained his reason for sending Mary to Baxter, other than his hope she be educated in cynicism. The Baxters were Glassite Calvinists, but I think that line of information would just raise more questions (what is a Glassite Calvinist? why did Godwin choose this religious dissenting sect after his own unhappy experiences with the Sandemanians? etc.) The influence of the religious and dissenting fraternity is never pronounced in Mary Shelley, who recalled Scotland for its scenery, friendships, and effect on her writing, but not that. qp10qp (talk) 12:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Sometimes these questions cannot be covered by a summary encyclopedia entry. Reducing 400-page biographies to this has been horror enough. I won't mention the literary criticism! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As for "the radical, William Baxter", I thought that was legitimate English usage, if a bit old-fashioned, and without the implication that there was only one radical, namely this one. If the choice is to have but one radical or more than one Baxter, how about "William Baxter, a well-known radical" (if well-known he was)? Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"The radical, William Baxter" does suggest that there is only one radical Baxter. I think this sentence is fine as it is. Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is less to this than meets the eye. Yes, there exists a style that says "the footballer, David Beckham"; but Baxter was not famous, so that form doesn't apply here. All the phrase says is that this chap Baxter was radical: it is like saying "the red-haired William Baxter" or "the religious William Baxter". The problem is probably that "radical" can also be a noun. But I would argue that even with a noun, the locution works: it would be like saying "the plumber William Baxter" or "my friend William Baxter"—we would not suppose from the last two examples that there was only one plumber called William Baxter or that William Baxter was my only friend. qp10qp (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Percy Shelley's radicalism, which he had imbibed from Godwin's Political Justice, had alienated him from his aristocratic family" - I like that particular style, but I'm afraid that "imbibe" might not be the encyclopedic style to use for a WP article.

Although I didn't choose it, I like "imbibe" (and I say this after a willing flick through the thesaurus). I'm not a great fan of flattening prose to make it "encyclopedic". "Imbibe" carries a sense of drinking in, and that's exactly what Shelley did. If you can think of as marvellous a word, I will go along with it.qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else at the moment (and I too looked through the thesaurus). "Learned"? Ew. Awadewit (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it more a question of keeping a consistent style, than of, generally, flattening prose, but I'm not very passionate about this question. If you would like to keep it, keep it. If looking for an alternative, I would have said "radicalism, influenced as it was by Shelley's reading of Godwin's Political Justice..." or similar. I wouldn't be surprised if this indeed were all one could say with certainty; "imbibe" seems to rule out other influences, which one probably can't. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PBS was more than influenced, though. He was a disciple of Godwin's philosophy. He tried to live by it. I was trying to get that kind of feeling across with "imbibe". Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "To Mary's dismay, her father disapproved and tried to thwart the relationship and salvage the "spotless fame" of his daughter (it was at this same moment that Godwin learned of Shelley's inability to pay off his loans)" - which "same moment"? Pinning it down to a specific moment in time is surely beyond what historical science can do; also, no specific moment is defined here. Unless the trying-to-thwart happened much more quickly than common experience would suggest it did.

Changed to: "To Mary's dismay, her father disapproved and tried to thwart the relationship and salvage the "spotless fame" of his daughter. At about the same time, Godwin learned of Shelley's inability to pay off his loans for him". qp10qp (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Mary, who later wrote of 'my excessive" - admittedly a small issue, but "who later wrote of her 'excessive" would read more smoothly, I think.

• Since there are two "my's" in the phrase, I think it is best to leave the first one. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "taking Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, with them" - that was already wikilinked earlier, I think

• Yes, but this is a new section and this is an important moment in Claire's history - readers may want to click. Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "by land to the Dutch port of Marsluys," - neither the English nor the Dutch WP has an article on Marsluys, and google only leads to clones of WP articles. Is this a spelling problem? Does the port now have another name? Is there a nearby city that could be used as a link?

Linked to Maassluis. The spelling "Marsluys" is Mary and Percy's in their journal.qp10qp (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the visits of Hogg, whom she warmed to and who helped the couple financially." - this sounds awkward. Surely there's a more elegant version of this sentence.

Changed to: "She was partly consoled by the visits of Hogg, whom she disliked at first but then warmed to". Perhaps the sentence had tried to do too much, so I removed the financial aspect and expanded the rest. It was a complex and strange relationship, I think, which is difficult to sum up briefly. qp10qp (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know that sometimes there's no choice but to end a sentence on "to", but this looks like a case where it should be avoidable. "whom she disliked at first, but soon came to consider a good friend" or similar? Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "whom she disliked at first, but soon considered a close friend". Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "They planned to spend the summer with the poet Lord Byron, whose recent affair with Claire had left her pregnant." - this is a bit sudden - how did Lord Byron come into it? Did he hang around the Shelley household previously?

Not at all; they hardly knew him—in fact, I'm not sure Percy had even met him before Geneva, and Mary only once. Claire just wrote to Byron, and the next thing, they were having short fling that was pretty burnt out by the summer. Yes, Byron does come into the article rather sudddenly, but he came into Mary Shelley's life very suddenly. And this Geneva jaunt was not long planned. qp10qp (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the article should perhaps make it clearer that this mirrors reality. "who had had a sudden and brief affair with Claire some short time earlier, leaving Claire pregnant"?

It is all very complicated, however (this article is a subdued melodrama). Claire actually approached Byron - should that be mentioned, too? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you where you place the cut-off, as long as your description is self-contained (which the original version, I thought, wasn't - it made me feel like I had missed something earlier in the text). Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any good way to expand this concisely, because all of the expandable information is not really relevant to MS - it is all about Byron and Claire Clairmont. I'm not sure we should start describing the Byron affairs in great detail. Awadewit (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

May be all it takes is to make clear that PBS and MS didn't know him all that well. "They planned to spend the summer with the poet Lord Byron, following an invitation that was the result of an unexpected affair between Byron and Claire, which had left Claire pregnant." - that would at least make clear that their spending the summer there is only via the Byron-Claire connection. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But the affair wasn't unexpected for Byron and Claire and that is what this makes it sound like. Every time we introduce more information here, it just requires ever more to explain what we've introduced. I really do think this is fine as it is. Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and talking into the night" - noticeably more casual than the usual style of this article. "and having long conversations which could last until late at night" or something similar?

I've changed this to "talking late into the night"; although idiomatic, this is good formal English, I think. qp10qp (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the Creator of the world" - on reading of the Creator, I realize that the text, so far, spoke of Mary's political convictions, but didn't tell me anything about her religious beliefs. May be I misremember - was there something about her beliefs? Should there be something?

I don't know what Awadewit thinks, but I haven't read much about that. She did start going to church in Italy; on the other hand, Valperga has some anti-church sentiments. qp10qp (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of coverage of this topic in the literature greatly annoys me. For example, I believe that I read somewhere that Mary Jane Clairmont took the children to a Catholic church, even though Godwin was an atheist. Also, there are several fragments by Mary Shelley that have strong anti-Christian elements to them (see List of works by Mary Shelley). Some of these may have been co-authored with Percy Bysshe Shelley, however, who was an atheist. Yet, the most prominent literary criticism does not mention these fragments and there are only scattered references to her discussions of Catholicism (which are often negative). Mary Shelley was surrounded by people who had very atypical beliefs for the time. Whether she agreed with Godwin and Shelley, I am not sure. However, I agree with Qp that not much (if anything) is made of her religious beliefs, either in the biographical material or the literary criticism. Awadewit (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the heavily pregnant body of Percy Shelley's wife, Harriet, was retrieved" - this sounds a bit off, but I cannot quite put my finger on it. I would probably prefer "the body of Percy Shelley's wife Harriet was retrieved, who had been heavily pregnant at the time of her death." - the key part being the body, being retrieved, while the "heavily pregnant" is additional information. Also, on this occasion I notice that Percy's relationship with Harriet is somewhat mysterious, at least in this text. First, we read he was estranged; how did she become pregnant before her death? Had there been a reconciliation?

Changed to: "On 10 December, Percy Shelley's wife, Harriet, was discovered drowned in the Serpentine, a lake in Hyde Park, London." This treats her as a human being rather than a body. I have now left out the fact that she was pregnant, because this is raising too many extra questions in your mind. This usefully shows where the limits of this article's information should be, maybe. Who the father of the unborn child was is not clear; it could have been a soldier she had been seeing; Shelley; or someone else: the sources favour the soldier, but, hmm, they trace back to Percy Shelley himself and to Claire Clairmont. Though estranged from Harriet, you wouldn't put it past Shelley, since he didn't believe in faithfulness, and he often visited London and had financial dealings with her. qp10qp (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Sir Timothy Shelley threatened to stop the allowance if any biography of Percy Bysshe Shelley" - this is another occasion where I wondered, once more, about the repetition of last names. Sir Timothy was introduced not long ago, so why does he get his last name on this occasion? And why is Percy Bysshe Shelley now again spelled out in full, when "his son" would be much shorter, and at least equally informative?

Changed to: "Sir Timothy threatened to stop the allowance if any biography of the poet were published". You are right to point such things out. The names are tricky: we had "son" in the previous sentence, meaning Percy Florence Shelley, who has to be distinguished from Percy Bysshe Shelley, or we could probably dispense with the latter's middle name in the article altogether. I've tried to get round all this now by using "poet" here. qp10qp (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "She refused, saying that after being married to one genius, she could only marry another. Payne therefore tried without success to talk his friend Irving into proposing in his place." - the "therefore" is unclear to me. Is this a logical step to take? Come to think of it, does "proposing in his place" mean that he asked Irving to offer his, Irving's hand in marriage to Mary, or to offer his, Payne's hand?

I've removed the tricky bits, leaving: "Payne fell in love with her and in 1826 asked her to marry him. She refused, saying that after being married to one genius, she could only marry another. Payne accepted the rejection and tried without success to talk his friend Irving into proposing himself." This is difficult to summarise because it seems by no means a logical step, but to Payne it was: such was his love for Mary that he tried to fix her up with a genius, if that was the way to make her happy. Hard to believe, but there it is. qp10qp (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1827, Mary Shelley was party to a scheme that enabled her friend Isabel Robinson and Isabel's lover, Maria Mary Dods, who wrote under the name David Lyndsay, to embark on a life together in France as man and wife." - somewhat convoluted as a sentence through the two-stage explanation of who Isabel's lover was.

I find myself unable to come up with a better wording. Tried dropping the David Lyndsay clause, but it left the sentence rather too cryptic. This whole business is so laboriously complex that I am not sure it can be summed up in pellucid prose. 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does sound a bit complex. How about "In 1827, Mary Shelley was party to a scheme that enabled her friend Isabel Robinson and Isabel's lover, Maria Mary Dods, to embark on a life together in France as man and wife. To this unusual end, Dods took on the identity of her pen name, David Lyndsay." - splitting it up in that way? Of course, not knowing the details, I don't know if what I wrote is correct, but may be something along these lines? Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have at least re-added a note we had: "Dods, who had an infant daughter, assumed the name Walter Sholto Douglas and was accepted in France as a man." As I say, it's laboriously complex, and the more one adds, the more questions are raised, I think. I'd really like to keep this to one sentence, cramped though it is. qp10qp (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "With the help of Payne, whom she kept in the dark about the details, Mary Shelley obtained false passports for the couple, risking her own reputation." - I don't quite get why the reputation is the important thing here. Isn't obtaining passports a crime - so she was really risking her freedom, if not her life? (I have no idea how draconian the anti-forgery laws were back then.)

Nor me, so I've just deleted the reputation bit. qp10qp (talk) 04:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "of the atheistic section of Queen Mab from Percy Shelley's poems" - do poems come naturally in sections? I would have thought "stanza(s)" more natural, but, not knowing anything about the poem, I could well be wrong.

Good spot. Changed to "passages". qp10qp (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the atheistic sections go on for more than one stanza, if anyone is interested. "Section" is not strange wording, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In the mid 1840s, Mary Shelley found herself the target of a series of blackmailers." - I know that it's "a gaggle of geese" and "a pride of lions", but unless "a series of blackmailers" is similarly specialized usage, it should probably be "a series of black mail attempts", or the like. Or "serial blackmail"?

Changed to: "Mary Shelley found herself the target of three separate blackmailers". qp10qp (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "A friend of her son bribed" - given that this text unabashedly uses "whom", this should probably be "A friend of her son's".

Both are correct. But changed to the double possessive, why not. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1848, Percy Florence married Jane Gibson St John. The marriage was a happy one, and Mary Shelley and Jane were fond of each other." - since, presumably, the marriage being a happy one is a look into a future, should it be "The marriage would prove to be a happy one", or similar?

Done. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "she died of a suspected brain tumour at the age of fifty-three" - is the suspicion contemporary or modern?

Changed to: "On 1 February 1851, at Chester Square, she died at the age of fifty-three from what her physician suspected was a brain tumour." qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "all of Mary's juvenilia was lost" - shouldn't the verb agree with "juvenilia" here, which would make it plural?

Most definitely. Thanks. qp10qp (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it's not "all...was lost"? Awadewit (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, "all of" (or "most of", or "some of") can take singular or plural, depending on what follows. "All of the cake was spoiled" because "the cake was spoiled", but "all of the juvenilia were lost" because "the juvenilia were lost". At least that's how I learned it. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, but I suppose I was thinking of THE juvenilia as a singular collection. No matter. I see it is changed. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, you can have "all the money was ..." but not "all the cups was ...". I suppose it depends whether juvenilia is considered a mass noun or not. I think the change is safest. qp10qp (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My dictionary says "plural noun". Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Sections of Mary Shelley's novels are often interpreted as masked rewritings of her life." - a bit odd; shouldn't this be "Certain sections"? Or will any section do?

"Certain sections" works. Done. qp10qp (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the same themes and employs similar literary devices as Godwin's Caleb Williams (1794)" - this might once more show my limited knowledge of English, but does "employ similar literary devices as" work? I would have expected "employ literary devices similar to those in/of" or something like that.

Changed to: "For example, Frankenstein draws on many of the same themes and literary devices as Godwin's Caleb Williams (1794)". qp10qp (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "However, Shelley critiques the Enlightenment ideals that Godwin promotes in his novels." - does she only critique those specific Enlightenment ideals, and leave the others alone? If not, something along the lines of "However, where Godwin promotes the ideals of Enlightenment in his novels, Shelley critiques them."

Not sure about this, Markus. It seems clear enough to me that she critiques the Enlightenment ideals in Godwin's novels. This passage is about the relation of Mary Shelley's novels to the Godwinian novel, and her more general political ideas are treated elsewhere.qp10qp (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what the sentence is trying to say is that MS critiques the Enlightenment ideals that Godwin promotes - not all of the ideals of the Enlightenment, which is what your version suggests. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC

OK, if that's the meaning, how about "critiques those Enlightenment ideal that..."?

Sorry, what are you proposing? Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing "the" with "those" to stress that it is indeed about those promoted in Godwin's novels. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• What is the "Godwinian novel" in the first place? It doesn't appear to have a wikilink, and there's no explanation. It would be great if there could be a brief characterization first, before going on with comparing and contrasting.

I've added a brief quote of explanation at first mention. Now reads: "Mary Shelley's novels fuse Walter Scott's new historical novel with the 1790s Godwinian novel that "employed a Rousseauvian confessional form to explore the contradictory relations between the self and society". qp10qp (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha! I hope that helps! Now you have to know what the Rousseuvian confessional form is! Perhaps I will seek advice on how to make this section more accessible. Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not just out to prove that even an article without any mathematics can be unavoidably technical. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Shelley's narrative style reflects this theme; many early Godwinian novels were written in first-person, while Shelley's novels were often written in third-person" - I don't get this. How does third-person writing reflect the individual's lack of control over history? Surely a first-person can reflect that individual's helplessness just as adequately, or a third-person account describe an individual's control of his life?

• Those 1790s Godwinian novels showed individuals, depicted in the first-person, trying to control their destiny, while the third-person narrative mode of Mary Shelley showed things happening to them that they could not control. There was an omniscient narratorial voice telling the reader what was happening and the characters don't seem like they can change what is happening. One of ways to think about this is that it may be possible to use first-person to show the lack of control people have over their lives, but in the 1790s, writers did not choose to do that - they chose to use first-person to show control. So, when writers like Mary Shelley wanted to show something different, they often chose to use a different style to mark the different theme. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• It does, and if you could incorporate part of that into the article, I think that would help. "written in first-person which, at the time, was an often-used way of emphasizing the narrator's control of..." or something like that. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have decided the payoff for this is too little to go into the explanation that would be required. I have just deleted the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In addition to the historical novel, Shelley used the Gothic to comment on gender issues." - this is the "Gothic novel", I expect, not, say, the "Gothic period"? Here, repetition of the word novel wouldn't hurt. Also, if you're writing for a general audience, a quick recapitulation of the relevant characteristics might be good. I know there's always the possibility to follow wikilinks, but still, an article should be self-contained, where that is achievable.

• The "Gothic style" added. I think that explaining how Mary Shelley used the Gothic might be enough - she didn't use all elements of the Gothic, obviously. Qp, what do you think? Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, this whole paragraph has now been rewritten and moved to the "Gender" section. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "were largely responsible for the recovery of Shelley as a writer." - this sounds a bit odd. "rediscovery" I could understand, but "recovery"? Sounds like a salvage operation.

If this comes over as too technical a word, perhaps we will have to change it; but in this context, it is the mot juste, in my opinion, because feminist scholarship has systematically recovered authors who were neglected and buried in the past and held them up to the light. Not exactly a salvage operation; more the recovery of lost gems. qp10qp (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the technical word, yes - such things are referred to as "recovery projects". I think the idea still comes across. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - I guess it will still sound a little odd to lay readers, though. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Ellen Moers was one of the first to claim that Frankenstein is a product of Shelley's tragic loss of a baby." - this sentence doesn't read well, in my eyes. First of all, the subjunctive should be there in spirit, if not in form - so may be "to claim that .. should be regarded as a product"? Also, the "a product of" sounds to me like an inappropriate personification. As if the loss sits up, stretches its little fingers, unwraps its little typewriter and, before you know it, is typing away, deep in concentration as it works on what is to be its greatest novel yet.

I've tried: "Ellen Moers was one of the first to claim that Shelley's loss of a baby influenced the writing of Frankenstein. (And I took out the word "tragic", which I think goes without saying.) qp10qp (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so picky, but I think we need a stronger word than "influenced" because Moers basically says that Frankenstein is the result of MS losing her baby - not that it was one of may influences. What about: "Ellen Moers was one of the first to claim that Frankenstein resulted from Shelley's loss of a baby."Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that last version again makes it sound too simple. Lose baby -> write novel. A "key" influence? "Crucial"? Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"was a crucial influence on the writing of..." Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Shelley's fears of self-assertion are enacted in the character of Frankenstein" - is enacted the right word here?

I've changed to "Shelley's fear of self-assertion is enacted in the fate of Frankenstein, who is punished for his egotism by losing all his domestic ties". I edited this, since "enacted" was my word; Awadewit will do better, as it is her sentence I meddled with. (As far as I can see, Poovey is saying that though Frankenstein sets out to serve others, he is in fact trying to immortalize himself, and his monstrous act of egotism can only end in alienation from society and loved ones.) qp10qp (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Did it used to say "embodied"? That is my instinct, but that word is probably too lit crit. The idea is that Shelley's own fears are coming out in her character. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think "embodied" is too specialized, and I think it sounds better than "enacted". What about "reflected", though? Or her fears "find their counterpart in the character of Frankenstein", or something along this line? Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed to "reflected". Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Frankenstein, like much Gothic fiction of its period" - "like many works of Gothic fiction of the same period"?

I've changed it to "the period", but I feel the rest is OK. qp10qp (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a standard way of referring to fiction - one does not need to say "works of fiction" every time. Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought the "much" wasn't all that elegant. Markus Poessel (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but "a lot" is even worse! Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Where does "a lot" come into it? Certainly not from me (I hope). Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just saying that is a worse alternative - there aren't many options here. Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Frankenstein, in line with a general trend in Gothic fiction of its time"? Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that extra wordiness is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "These traits are not portrayed positively" - adverb or adjective? To make sure, how about "not portrayed in a positive light" or similar?

Just seems like a normal adverb to me. qp10qp (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Although Mary Shelley believed, like her parents and her husband, in the Enlightenment idea that people could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, she also believed that irresponsible use of power led to chaos." - the "although" sounds odd. Why should the second belief be in the least degree unexpected, given the first?

Agreed. Changed to "Mary Shelley believed, like her parents and her husband, in the Enlightenment idea that people could improve society through the responsible exercise of political power, but that the irresponsible exercise of power led to chaos". qp10qp (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• "in making references to the failure of the French Revolution" - I think that, given some of the French Revolution's enduring consequences, and also its later influence, calling it a "failure" is, well, debatable.

Changed to: "in making references to the French Revolution and the Godwinian, Wollstonecraftian, and Burkean responses to it". I think this makes no real difference to the meaning of the sentence but no longer sounds as if it is branding the revoltion a failure altogether. qp10qp (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is an important point. What was meant and not explained was that French Revolution was perceived as a failure at the time by people like MS, PBS, and Godwin. Could we add that in somehow? Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that changes it, of course, but then, as you say, it should be made explicit who thought it a failure. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "of a conservative retrenchment by Mary Shelley" - is this proper use of "retrench"? What is being retrenched? And, read literally, wouldn't that mean she became less conservative, while what appears to be meant is that she became more so?

Changed to: "Critics have until recently cited Lodore and Falkner as evidence of increasing conservatism in Mary Shelley". qp10qp (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "For example, Jane Blumberg, in her study of Shelley's early novels argues" - comma after "novels"?

Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "while male identity can be transformed through economic exchange" - may be this is where I finally run into the "unavoidably technical" in a literary subject, but I have no idea what that sentence is meant to say. If it's unavoidably technical, fine, if you expect the "curious average reader" to follow, please re-formulate.

Changed to: "In her stories, female identity is tied to a woman's short-lived value in the marriage market while male identity can be sustained and transformed through the use of money". What Sussman is saying is that whereas the economic value of women declines, men keep their economic value in the market and may use their financial independence to recreate/renew their identity, etc. qp10qp (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The work celebrates youthful love and political idealism and consciously follows" - comma before the last "and"?

I don't think so. qp10qp (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think that, yes. If you just have "celebrates...love and ..idealism and" then the reader might expect another item in the list of what is being celebrated. With a comma, you state that the list is complete, and that we are moving on to a new part of the sentence. Awadewit? Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No - it isn't a list of three things that are being celebrated. It is a list of two things: "youthful love and political idealism" and then the sentence goes on to a new topic: genre. The sentence has a larger structure like this: "The work celebrates...and consciously follows...." Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's exactly my point. There are two different layers here. That's why I would like to separate them with a comma. "The work celebrates X and Y and Z" is a celebration of three things; in "The work celebrates X and Y, and also does Z" the comma forestalls any fleeting misconception about what is and what isn't part of the celebration. Markus Poessel (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, compromise. I've changed it to: "The work celebrates youthful love and political idealism, and it consciously follows the example of Mary Wollstonecraft and others who had combined travelling with writing". I have restated the subject in order to justify the comma. qp10qp (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Not like a compromise, but like something that fully addresses my complaint. Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sentence isn't a compromise. But I compromised, being happy with the original. It would be a sad day for the English language when we can't set two things in a row without them being mistaken for the start of a list. Fear of the compound predicate is one of the stylistic vices of Wikipedia, in my opinion.qp10qp (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In the tradition of Mary Wollstonecraft's Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and her own A History of a Six Weeks' Tour, Shelley maps her personal and political landscape in Rambles through the discourse of sensibility and sympathy." - something odd with this sentence. I think the placement of "in Rambles" is sub-optimal. How about "In Rambles, Shelly follows the tradition... in mapping her .. landscape... through the discourse..."?

Done. Good suggestion. qp10qp (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "for Dionysius Lardner's Lives." - since this would appear to be the works first mention in the main text, giving it its full title would seem to be appropriate.

Done. qp10qp (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Mary began the building of Percy's poetic reputation in 1824 with the publication of his Posthumous Poems." - "began building Percy's"? It still sounds a bit odd, but that may be because I am used to reputations being built by the reputees themselves, not by third parties.

I've tried "Mary began her fostering of Percy's poetic reputation in 1824 with the publication of his Posthumous Poems". qp10qp (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To my ears, it still doesn't sound as it should, but that could well be the fault of my ears. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with it, unless you can suggest something more lyrical. :) Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "her fostering of" probably sounds a bit clumsy for just "fostering", but the latter risks losing the sense that this was a deliberate and personal programme. 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

May be something that explains Mary's goals first: "Convinced that Percy's work deserved much wider recognition, Mary set herself the goal of fostering his poetic reputation. She began with the publication, in 1824, of his..."? Markus Poessel (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "and she included poems that harmed her own reputation" - what is this about? Poems dedicated to other persons? Poems about her, unflatteringly so? Puzzled readers of this article want to know.

Changed to: "she included poems, such as Epipsychidion, addressed to Emilia Viviani, which she would rather have left out. qp10qp (talk)

<Sound of buzzer> – is that conjecture? Does she write anywhere that she would rather have left it out? Markus Poessel (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, she did - in her journal. Qp, do you have the journal citation for that or should we use the Seymour citation (466)? Awadewit (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

She also wrote this in a letter to Ollier, claiming that Percy Shelley had wanted to revoke the poem. But I think the Seymour reference that we have is best (Seymour selects this from the journal, not us—she is our secondary source for this). qp10qp (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Mary Shelley was taken seriously as a writer in her own lifetime, though reviewers" - since the contrast between this sentence and the next is "in her own lifetime" vs. "later", "in her own lifetime" should probably be moved to that sentence's beginning.

Done. qp10qp (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Markus Poessel (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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. The sourcing looks good. I didn't read every single footnote to make sure you had page numbers, etc. That can wait for FAC ... otherwise, looks good.

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.) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the trouble to check the article over. Passing the Ealdgyth test feels like passing the MOT: now we know we are at least roadworthy. qp10qp (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we appreciate all the time and effort you are putting into these source checks! Awadewit (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Editorofthewiki

• Hi, really nice article on an important subject. While randomly looking at a part of the article, this statement sounded funny to me: "Between 1832 and 1839, Mary Shelley wrote many biographies of "eminent" Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and French men and a few women for Dionysius Lardner's Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men." Perhaps it's just me, but using the word "eminent" twice (even if once is just a book title) kind of sounded redundant. I can't think of how I would've reworded it, so that's why I'm bringing this to the PR. Best of luck with the article! I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 01:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed the first "eminent" to "notable". qp10qp (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Laser brain comments

Wow, this is quite a mature article. I'm quite impressed. What follow are sure to be niggles and some of them subjective:

• "When Mary was three, he married his neighbour ..." I know what it means, but it reads like Mary married "his" neighbor.

• Changed to "Godwin married his". Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "... the married philosopher-poet Percy Bysshe Shelley ..." Not sure you need to mention the philosopher-poet bit again in the lead, since we were just told he was a poet and philosopher.

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about the sentences beginning with "but": "But Godwin was often deeply in debt ..." and "... but Godwin was devoted to her, and the marriage was a success."

• I have changed the first "but" to "however". Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Together, Godwin and Mary Jane Clairmont started a publishing firm ..." The "together" doesn't add much, if anything. Normally I would just take it out but it tends to be a subjective editorial decision along with writing things like "Both my father and my mother have green eyes."

• I was trying to emphasize the "togetherness", yes, since we want to make it clear that both parties participated in the business (this is the early nineteenth century, after all). [Awadewit decides not to launch into musings on gender and class and the running of the Godwin business to everyone's relief.] Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "This money would have to be repaid in the future, however." Likewise, "in the future" isn't adding much since it clearly couldn't be repaid in the past.

• Deleted "in the future". Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Though Mary Godwin received little formal education ..." This and the "informal" education you mention in the lead are a bit muddy to me. Are you saying "formal" means going to a physical school and "informal" the opposite? I'm not sure that's a black and white matter.

• I think another way of defining the distinction would be that "formal" is following a curriculum (at a school or with a tutor) and not following a curriculum. It does not seem that MS did this. Her education was rather haphazard. We want to make this clear to the reader unfamiliar with nineteenth-century scholastic structures - how best to do this? Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that formal education was education in schools and universities, and informal education was education at home. qp10qp (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree more with Awadewit's curriculum qualifier than that of the physical location. I think modern readers would connect more with the terms "traditional" and "nontraditional"; thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

But I believe we are trying to emphasize the haphazard nature of her education and I think the word "nontraditional" has a lot of other connotations for modern-day readers that lead them away from that. Although not the perfect word, I think this works well enough. The article describes the education, so hopefully that will take care of any problems. Awadewit (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Her father described her at fifteen as 'singularly bold, somewhat imperious, and active of mind. Her desire of knowledge is great, and her perseverance in everything she undertakes almost invincible'." I believe you want the period inside the end quote since it's part of the quote. There are more of these throughout.

• I checked - it is part of the quote. Changed. I thought we were following WP:PUNC throughout - Qp were you? Awadewit (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read it. Looks like I should have done. I'd better check through any others. qp10qp (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed several of these now. A couple I am not sure about because preliminary phrases were excluded from the sentences quoted (but/in their stead), to fit them in better. I have left these ones "fullstopped outside" because I am not quite sure what the M0S means there by "only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation"; I thought the "logical system" (shudders) was rather a question of whether a whole sentence or part of it has been quoted. A couple of others perhaps Awadewit could check, because I don't have Blumberg. These are "his relentless ambition is a self-delusion, clothed as quest for truth" and "the disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself". If we go purely by sense, these should go inside, but if they are parts of a longer sentence, I wouldn't be so sure.

I have a rather embarrassing excuse for these confusions: I admit am something of a follower of the Fowlers' elegantly pompous The King's English, where one finds gems like the following (forgive me if I resort to the outside full stop for this): "Just as the ears may be regarded as not hearing organs, but 'handsome volutes of the human capital', so quotation-marks may be welcomed as giving a good picturesque finish to a sentence; those who are of this way of thinking must feel that, if they allowed outside them anything short of fine handsome stops like the exclamation and question marks, they would be countenancing an anticlimax. But they are really mere conservatives, masquerading only as aesthetes". Despite this, I have to concede that Wikipedia rules rather differently and that this is a minority style. qp10qp (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I must pick this up tomorrow—more later. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

More:

• "Though he was descended from a wealthy family, Percy Shelley therefore had difficulty obtaining cash ..." I'm not sure about the use of "cash" here; was currency really common for wealthy families? Didn't they buy a lot of stuff on account? Would it be more precise to say he had difficulty obtaining access to assets?

I've changed it to "gaining access to money", but this may not be satisfactory either. "Assets" is a little ambiguous for me, since it can mean money or property/bonds, etc. I was going to say that he had difficulty gaining credit, but though that is true, he also did manage to borrow more than most people could have done, by securing loans on his eventual inheritance (often at extortionate rates—I think lenders could see young aristocrats coming a mile off). qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ready money" is the phrased usually used, but I thought that might be a bit obscure to readers. Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Percy Shelley was sometimes forced to leave in order to dodge creditors." Avoid the phrase "in order to" as it means the same thing as "to". However, "forced to leave to dodge creditors" sounds odd so maybe you can come up with something different.

Changed to "Percy Shelley sometimes left home for short periods to dodge creditors". qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Out of idle curiosity, is Hogg any relation to our friend Ima?

I don't know. More likely to have been related to the Limelights of Texas. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Percy Shelley seems to have wanted Mary Shelley and Hogg to become lovers ..." Referring to the subject as "Mary Shelley" here seems out of place, since before and after it you are still calling her "Mary Godwin".

Nice spot. Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The loss of her child induced an acute depression ..." Please double-check, but I believe eliminating "an" is correct.

Happy to eliminate. Done. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "These losses left her in a deep depression ..." Sounds more apt here.. sigh. Would a specialist say, "She is suffering from depression." or "She is suffering from a depression."?

I've kept this one in, so we have one of each. I think probably that both forms are acceptable in a non-technical context. qp10qp (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In December 1818, the Shelleys travelled south with Claire Clairmont and their servants to Naples, where they stayed for three months, receiving almost no visitors." How about, "... receiving few visitors"?

It used to say "no visitors", but my conscience told me to change this, since they had one visitor, a physician. He also stayed for dinner. This is complex, because it was unlike the Shelleys not to socialise, but the rest of the paragraph shows that the visit to Naples was unusual. I've changed to "only one visitor, a physician". qp10qp (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• "In the summer of 1838 Edward Moxon, the publisher of Tennyson and the son-in-law of Charles Lamb, proposed publishing a collected works of Percy Shelley." Suggest "the collected works" if it indeed was all of his works, to avoid "a ... works".

Awadewit will have a better grasp of this than me, but this collected works did not prove to be definitive. There have been others since. qp10qp (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - many definitive editions. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• For the quote "knowledge, to enlighten and free the mind from clinging deadening prejudices—a wider circle of sympathy with our fellow-creatures;—these are the uses of travel"; please verify that the source contains a semi-colon followed by a dash.

It does. She wouldn't last long on Wikipedia! qp10qp (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, really nice work. --Laser brain (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider my items addressed; I never know if it's proper to strike comments at peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the trouble to review the article. It's much appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you enjoyed the article! Awadewit (talk) 12:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)