Talk:Maurice (Shelley)

Maurice (Shelley) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 31, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 16, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 26, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1820 children's story Maurice by Mary Shelley was lost until 1997?

Current status: Good article

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maurice (Shelley)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

Throughout the summer, Claire wrote anxiously to Byron, begging to see Allegra; he consistently refused. Do we know why? Byron comes off sounding like a royal jerkface in this section. I trust this is how the reader is supposed to feel?

Believing that the Shelleys were careless parents who were responsible for the deaths of their children and concerned that the children were not receiving proper religious training, he consistently refused to let Claire see their daughter. - added this explanation from one of Byron's letters and, yes, Byron was a "royal jerkface" Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Shelley wrote Maurice for Anna Laura Georgiana Tighe, or Laurette... Insofar as we've seen her as simply "Laurette" at this point, I wonder if the full name is necessary here?

I thought it was important to have her full name somewhere. Do you think it would be better to have it in the lead or in the background? Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for Background. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Writing and publication" contains background biographical info on George Tighe and Margaret, Lady Mountcashell – but we just learned all about them in the Background section. Perhaps these parts were written at different times, with the intent of merging? (Seems like the sentences between footnotes 7 and 8 could be moved into Background.)

Good catch. See what you think of this version. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his article on Maurice, Mekler suggests... Could we get a first name and an identifying noun (critic, biographer, etc)? Same with Tomalin later on.

I don't know if L. Adam Mekler is a literary critic, so I just started the sentence "in his article on Maurice". I have expanded the name. The first instance of Tomalin already says "Percy Shelley and Wollstonecraft biographer". Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, how did I miss that? My bad. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little jarring for me to be reading about the novel's potential for publication, and then suddenly jump to the part about when it was found in 1997. Maybe we need a sentence about "It was lost for xxx years" or "The last mention of the book appeared in 18xx"?

Now reads "The manuscript was discovered 177 years later..." Awadewit (talk)

Good. The second part just following this comment is still a bit confusing to me; maybe add "...and the story was presumably misplaced" or some such? – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not clear that it was - Laurette could have just kept it. We don't really know how it ended up in that box. Now reads: The fate of the manuscript was unknown until it was rediscovered 177 years later by Cristina Dazzi in the summer of 1997 ... Awadewit (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 22:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to clue us into where and/or how the manuscript was discovered? Was it in a bread basket? Tucked away behind a painting? I'd just love to have more detail here.

Added this sentence: She was looking through a box of old papers, searching for "something interesting" to add to an exhibit in Pisa about the winter of 1827–28 when the poet Giacomo Leopardi visited and met with Lady Mountcashell and her daughter. - Noting terribly romantic, I'm afraid! Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Tomalin" reference isn't in the Bibliography.

It's the Shelley reference - edited by Claire Tomalin. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see. Oops. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the extended quotes from critics, I'd prefer to have some kind of in-text lead-in. ("As Tomalin notes, blah blah..") This would be especially useful in the fourth paragraph of Style, genre and themes, which is mostly a series of such quotes.

I've tried to paraphrase more and fix any attribution problems in this revision. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, the first three children Percy and Mary had together died. Perhaps a small readjustment of the wording here? "...the Shelleys' loss of three children is also cited as a probable influence" or some such? Referring back to the biographical info, rather than repeating it as if for the first time; seems like it would make the article more cohesive.

New version: A third reference may be the Mary and Percy's own loss of three children Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Peanuts compared to yours! Thanks for all of the help! Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to these repairs, it's now up to GA standards. Yay! – Scartol • Tok 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

See above discussion for details.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Such as is presumably possible given current scholarship

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Nice work. – Scartol • Tok 22:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journals/note

When you said there was a journal entry, I looked it up on Amazon Search Inside. That volume always has excellent notes, so I hope the following contains material of use for the article, though the note is out of date (and I don't know if there is more certainty now that the 10 August entry refers to Maurice, though it occurs to me that the mountain trip would have taken some time).

The diary mention is typically terse:

"Thursday 10 [August 1820]—Write a story for Laurette—Walk on the mountain—Le Buche delle Fate [fairy grottoes or caves]—The weather is warm & delightful [runs into the next day's entry]"

The note gives interesting context about other stories:

"During 1820 and 1821, Mary wrote several short tales, though the story for Laurette is the only one mentioned in the Journal and is never mentioned by name. In the Bodleian library (MSS. Shelley Dep e.229) there is the manuscript of an unfinisned story for children entitled Cecil which probably belongs to this period, and she also produced two finished tales which she considered good enough for publication. In a letter to the Shelleys dated 10 July 1821, Leigh Hunt regretted that he had been unable to use a story sent to him by Mary for the Indicator, and in October 1821, Godwin wrote to Mary with his comments on a tale called Maurice, now lost, which he considered to be too short for publication (SM pp. 652, 698C–D)." (The Journals of Mary Shelley, 1814–44. Ed. Paula R. Feldman and Diana Scott-Kilvert, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995, note 3, p. 328. ISBN 0801850886.)

-qp10qp (talk) 23:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the quote from the journal - that is great. Thanks. "Cecil" now seems to be dated to 1844 - see List of works by Mary Shelley. Awadewit (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from Shoemaker's Holiday

~~The lead is short and choppy - expansion would help rectify this problem~~

The "Background" section needs to explain some of the details more, such as why Allegra was given to Byron, why Mary traveled with a sick Clara, etc. - we want a vivid portrait of the family here

~~Remind readers of who William Shelley is~~

~~"Lady Mountacashell, a former pupil" sentence is convoluted~~

~~Restructure first paragraph of "Writing and publication" to make it easier to follow~~

~~Rewrite the second paragraph of "Writing and publication" to make the sentences shorter and easier to understand~~

~~Remove detail of Dame Barnet teaching children to read, unless it is important later; if so, mention it there~~ Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]