Talk:The Story of an Hour

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amancini, Dboyn1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpabo2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Areci1. Peer reviewers: Areci1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mooodsy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit History

Added the infobox template Wheat (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Analysis section needs more added to it!

There are a lot of typos in the first section ...

The introduction seems needlessly "flowery". Killridemedly 09:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Summary

Kate Chopin’s short story "Story of an Hour" describes the series of emotions Louise Mallard endures after hearing the death of her husband, who was believed to have died in a railroad disaster. Chopin indicates that all marriages, no matter how special, are essentially cruel. Mrs. Mallard suffers from heart problems and therefore her sister attempts to inform her of the horrific news in a gentle way. Mrs. Mallard locks herself in her room to immediately mourn the loss of her husband. However, she begins to feel an unexpected sense of exhilaration. "Free! Body and soul free!" is what she believes is a benefit of his death.

I also think the summary should take out the piece where the writers says she dies from shock because that's not true. In the story all it states is that she dies from heart disease.Kristenn4 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Once she realizes she is now able to be free, Chopin says,"her fancy was running riot along those days ahead of her. Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own." From that day forward, Louise Mallard seemed to have endless amounts of times to do whatever she wanted. At the end of the story, it is made known that her husband was not involved in the railroad disaster and her husband returns home. Seeing her husband causes Mrs. Mallard to suddenly die from her heart problems.Lmuraskin18 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC) All these events occur within a span of an hour, hence the title Story of an Hour. Gena.A (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sentence structure within the summary is a little odd. I'm going to alter it slightly just to make it flow more smoothly. I think it would flow better written as: Kate Chopin's short story "Story of an Hour" describes the series of emotions Louise Mallard endures after hearing about the death of her husband, who was thought to have been killed in a railroad disaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty White Privilege (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Your sentence sounds way better and flows a lot more than the first one. Alang22 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks!Betty White Privilege (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the whole summary could actually benefit from being restructured. To continue off of my previous edit: (keeping the second sentence) "Chopin indicates that all marriages, no matter how special, are essentially cruel." Her sister attempts to break the news of her husbands death lightly due to Louise's heart condition. Louise then locks herself in her room to continue mourning the loss of her husband. "However, she begins to feel an unexpected sense of exhilaration." She believes that she is know a free woman and that's all she can think about

Once she realizes she is now able to be free, Chopin says,"her fancy was running riot along those days ahead of her. Spring days, and summer days, and all sorts of days that would be her own." From that day forward, Louise Mallard seemed to have endless amounts of times to do whatever she wanted. At the end of the story, it is made known that her husband was not involved in the railroad disaster and her husband returns home. Seeing her husband causes Mrs. Mallard to suddenly die from her heart problems. ( not done editing this summary)Betty White Privilege (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In the Summary it says that Brently hears a scream and runs up the stairs to see his wife's dead body, but in the story her sister is the one to scream and they try to block Brently from seeing the body. [User:Kcolv1[|Kcolv1]] (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the summary could use more detail.In the story there is no proof that Brently hears a scream and runs p the stairs to see his wife's dead body.There is no evidence to support this claim.[User:DumarioL[|DumarioL]] 9:11 , 3 April 2017

I edited the original summary by changing "believed" to "thought" in the first sentence to make it flow a little bit betterBetty White Privilege (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the summary needs to be edited a little and add what the story is about rather than just saying the "emotions" being portrayed on it Priyankirana26 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this summary needs to add on the essential theme of the story. Although it mentions that Mrs. Mallard "endures" different emotions it doesn't show how Mrs. Mallard feels about her marriage overall. In addition to this, the first sentence is a bit awkward, and needs to be revised. Alang22 (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence is a little awkward and that the theme of marriage should be introduced here. There was a social expectation of what marriage should be at this time and introducing that in the plot summary will make more sense as to why Louise starts to have all these joyous feelings about her husbands death Ecrup1 (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In the story it ends with it saying that she died from her heart condition, it doesn't exactly say that the doctors say she died from the joy of finally seeing her husband. I am going to change it to say that the doctors said she died from her heart condition. Kcolv1 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The summary and story don't really add up. The summary mentions how Mrs. Mallard locked herself in her room to mourn; in reality, she wept immedieatly and then as grief "spent itself" she made her way to the room. I also feel like doesn't include important details.Kaitlyncons1 (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that the summary needs some work, it did not seem to flow well at all when I read it.Jrams2 (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the summary is very brief. I'm sure this is because it's such a short story, but I wonder if it would be helpful to go into detail about how Louise Mallard deals with the "death" of her husband? One could summarize the emotions and actions that occurred between finding out about her husband's death, and his return to the home. Mooodsy (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the initial moments when Mrs. Mallard realizes her freedom should be included. The part of the story where she is sitting in the chair, looking out the window. I think it should also be added that Mrs. Mallard is still grieving even when Kate Chopin writes about Mrs. Mallard's excitement for her new found freedom.Rpate13 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree I think the summary needs more detail. Right now it just says that once she thought about her husbands death she realized she was happy and then it goes right into her going back down stairs, but I think it should go into more detail about Mrs. Mallard coming to the realization that this could actually be a good thing. It could just use a little more detail.LaurynB.7 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the summary says that Mrs. Mallard's grieve comes to an end when she locks herself in the room, but that is not true. She grieves for him even when she is thinking about her new, unrestricted life. Rpate13 (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Though unintentional, I think some of the wording states a point of view/personal evaluation of the story and its' characters. For example, the phrases "selfish monster," "normal woman," "'The Story of an Hour" presents the heroine as a heartless person who does not fear the death of her husband, but instead is filled with glee and joy,'" all represent the author's own interpretation with no reference.Mooodsy (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Too much quoted material used. I think some of the quotes are too long, and some information is unnecessary. I think the article would be much easier to follow if the quotes were condensed with ellipses or bracketsMooodsy (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it needs to be said in the summary that the doctor declared she passed from her Heart Disease, and that it can be INFERRED that she died of shock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc201 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the end of the summary is confusing because not everyone will understand what "From the joy that kills." means.MoscowEagl (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree as well. As of right now, it still says that she died "from fantasizing of her living a free life." I don't think that portion should be included because there is little to no evidence proving this. For any of the theories of how she died should be placed in the critical responses. Cornonthecob44 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the summary needs work. Kate Chopin spends a lot of time of the story discussing the imagery outside the window to help symbolize the joy Mrs. Mallard is feeling. It would be helpful to go into further detail discussing the imagery. Also, Mrs. Mallard does not die of joy, that was misdiagnosed by the male doctors.Dsheth01 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Dsheth01Dsheth01 (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

I think Selina Jamil has valid points of Mrs. Mallard feelings and actions. I completely agree with her piece which stated how Mrs. Mallard may've been trapped in her marriage causing her to now feel free when she finds out he is dead.Kristenn4 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Must we spend so much time on such a minority view of the piece when in fact there are no citations of the much more common readings? Especially one like Berkove's, which utterly misses one possible feminist critique (regardless of whether it is Chopin's view) that all marriage is/was oppressive. What's this "actually Mr. Mallard wasn't an awful husband" crap? It doesn't matter how he was as a husband. I fear that when some poor college freshman reads this article in addition to (or instead of) the story, s/he'll simply remember Berkove's misguided and uncommon view, dealing a near fatal blow to that student's understanding of literature as a whole. 70.171.45.53 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence L Berkove, in his article "Fatal Self-Assertion in Kate Chopin's 'The Story of an Hour,'" challenges that notion of Mrs. Mallard's death being a tragic one after she was finally freed from a constricting marriage. Berkove argues that this may not be the case, and that the "heroine" of the story may have instead been used as an immature egotist whose own extreme self assertion led to her own downfall. Berkove strongly contests the notion that Chopin intended for the views of the story's main character to coincide with those of the author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusty1shackleford (talk • contribs) 21:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While many critics do believe that chopin's tale is about female liberation, in Lawrence Berkove's criticism he brings up several points that counter this theory. Berkove points out there is no significant evidence to suggest Mr. mallard was an awful husband. He then goes on to suggest possibly Mrs. Mallard may have been mentally ill.

[[User:weav219|weav219] (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Berkove argues that Louise's "self-assertion," really in her case is a manifestation of an extreme self-love, which is exposed in this story as an emotional affliction of her heart that has physical consequences. [[User:Am8zinglysw33t|Am8zinglysw33t] (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that a important accomplishment of the book has been not to tell critics whether the joy of freedom that it describes was good or bad.

I added a few sentences speaking on Jamil's overall theme of patriarchy. I believe it is important to state that to really hammer home the point that the patriarchy is what causes Mrs. Mallard to die at the end of the story.Dsheth01 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I have a suggestion for the criticism section since it has many critics talking about different topics, is it possible to make subsections? For example, Lawrence I. Berkove talks about a woman in a repressive marriage. I suggest doing subcategories to make the information flow easily instead of having a mass text for this section. Cornonthecob44 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I added a section discussing Mark Cunningham's interpretation because I thought it was a unique one that I haven't seen before.MoscowEagl (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello MoscowEagl, I also wrote about Mark Cunningham's interpretation as well but I added a bit more information on it. I agree that it is a fascinating theory. I can try to figure out a way to combine our information since it is coming from the same source! Cornonthecob44 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I added to Berkove's piece of criticism because there wasn't a lot that was described in that part, despite there being a lotof information in the article he wrote. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 05:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Theme

Marriage

Kate Chopin negatively portrays marriage in the story as being the “blind persistence with which men and women believe they have a right to impose a private will upon a fellow-creature” (Chopin). Instead of the story being about a poor wife who has just lost her beloved husband, the reader now can perceive the situation for what it is. A wife finally free of the domestic servitude called “marriage” she was trapped in. The main character Mrs. Mallard is liberated from husband Bentley Mallard through his death, because when he was alive, he would use his “powerful will” to bend hers.p.ocasio42 (talk) 1:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, because right after Mr.Mallard's death, Louise is called by her name rather than her marital name "Mrs.Mallard", this just shows that she is finally free from her husband and even when she says the words "Free! Body and soul Free!" the readers can understand the meaning of her being free from her husband. Priyankirana26 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this as wellGrace05110430 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the theme section in the article could be expanded on because right now it really only discusses one theme so I think this would be a good idea to add. LaurynB.7 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. Yes marriage back then was more of the man in conrtol of the wife and everything she did, but Chopin did not exclsuivley say anything about the relationship Louise and her husband. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Technology

I recently had a paper published about the role of technology in the story (which I obviously believe is important). I thought that the research might be useful for this article, but thought it would be self-serving to add it myself. The paper is here -- Jdfoote (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting part of the story that I hadn't thought about. Now that I think of it, technology may play a huge part in why their marriage is the way that it is. Lflig1 (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting to note that a lack of technology may be the reason for the false news of her husband's death. If they did have cell phones or a way of communicating, this situation would've never happenedZtyler460 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Independence/Freedom

The protagonist has more freedom than other women around her, since she is part of a higher class, yet she feels trapped in her marriage causing her to feel that she has no freedom in any aspect of her life. Then, hearing of her husband's death she gains the freedom she has always desired. While looking out the window in her room, the protagonist calls for that freedom. That freedom is soon taken away from her in life, leading her to find freedom in death. Grace05110430 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I do agree with what you are saying, however it does not mention her economic status in the story, but I don't feel its necessary to talk about it regardless to help support this arguementMarc201 (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Louise Mallard had a restriction of freedom due to her husband, however, the story does not include her economic status. So its really unpredictable whether or not she was of a higher class. One could argue that since her husband worked at a railroad track he probably made good money, but we don't know this.

I do agree that her freedom has been restricted due to the time period they were in but not her economic status.Angiekullira (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is important to note that regardless of class, women were unequal to men. Granted, Mrs. Mallard had commodities that other women couldn't afford but she still was under the control of her husband. Chopin was trying to warn other of the effects of marriage and she wasn't the only female to do so. I recommend reading Susan Glaspell's "Trifles" to see how marriage similarly effected women in a lower class.Dsheth01 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that women were not equal to men in this time but, Chopin never mentioned anything about the Mallard's economic status. I also found it interesting how she found her freedom in death because when she finds out her husband is alive, she loses that freedom she dreamed of. Her death was able to give her the freedom she wanted, even though it was not her ideal situation. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

References

I have found a problem within, "Chekhov's At Christmas Time." The first source stating similar plots says, "original research?" which does not have any reliable published sources. I recommend either deleting that section, or the finding a source that is relevant. In addition, I have found a source that will verify the first paragraph of the page. I think adding this will verify the page better.

Chopin, Kate. The Story of An Hour. Logan, IA: Perfection Learning, 2001. Kate Chopin.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2016. http://www.katechopin.org/pdfs/Kate%20Chopin,%20The%20Story%20of%20an%20Hour.pdf Eserr1 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Errors

They were a few grammatical errors that I have fixed within the introducing paragraph. I moved the period within the parenthesis "the Dream of an Hour." Then I added the word "was" between "and" and "originally" in the first sentence, and replaced the word "first" with "was" to sound more grammatically correct in the second sentence.

In the summary, I added a comma between "husband" and "Brently" because it is telling us the name of Louise Mallard's husband. In addition, I added quotations within "Chekhov's 'At Christmas Time'" to properly cite the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eserr1 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, discontinue moving the periods inside of quotation marks. See MOS:PUNCT. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

"Mrs. Mallard suffers from heart problems; therefore, her sister and friend attempt to inform her of the horrific news in a gentle way. Mrs. Mallard locks herself in her room to immediately mourn the loss of her husband; however, she begins to feel an unexpected sense of exhilaration, yelling, "Free! Body and soul free" [3]. Her sudden rush of exhilaration is what she believes is a benefit of his death." It seems like there are too many commas, some of these phrases might be able to be turned into separate sentences. 198.254.26.2 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The bigger issue with the passage you've included here is the word "yelling." Mrs. Mallard does not yell! Oeparker1 (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

After each reference to the text of the story, shouldn't there be a citation? There are numerous quotes from the story with no references back to the story.Jrams2 (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Plot Summary Ending Critique

The current plot summary does not accurately describe what happened to Louise Mallard and what caused her death. "When she hears her husband enter the house" Louise Mallard does not hear her husband, but actually sees him.

I agree, the article could overall use a more detailed plot summary. Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

"Some one was opening the front door with a latchkey. It was Brently Mallard who entered, a little travel-stained, composedly carrying his grip-sack and umbrella. He had been far from the scene of the accident, and did not even know there had been one. He stood amazed at Josephine's piercing cry; at Richards' quick motion to screen him from the view of his wife."

While they did hear someone opening the door, it is unknown who it was until Mrs. Mallard sees him and then dies from the heart attack.--Jdabb98 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This ending summary is incorrect and you should read the story over again.--Jpabo2 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel as though the last sentence of the Plot Summary might be reaching into Analysis and might not belong there. Lflig1 (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary

In the summary, I think it would make more sense to consistently refer to the main character as Mrs. Mallard. 192.132.64.3 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It is confusing, and the use of her married name is an important part of her character. 192.132.64.3 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. The very first sentence of the story introduces her as Mrs. Mallard, so the summary should follow that to make it more consistent with the story.

Disagree. The story refers to her once as "Mrs. Mallard" and twice as "Louise". We would need a reliable source of literary analysis to choose one name over the other due to its relevance to the character's nature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

there is a minor error in the end of the summery, Mrs. Mallard actually sees her husband enter the room, and Richard tried to block the view. she didn't just hear him enter. Adayts (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this view that the summary misinterprets many crucial details about the plot of the story and does not do it justice in the short and bland summary in the article. Abdiel Tejada (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There also needs to be quotations around "joy that kills" in the summary because that is a direct quote from the story. Lflig1 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The summary includes the quote from the story, "From the joy that kills," but I feel this should be integrated in sentence because it currently just stands alone at the end of the paragraph with no context for it to connect to. Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary also states that Louise heard of her husband's death from Richards, but this is not exactly true. Her sister, Josephine, was the one that told her of her husband's death. Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The summary should discuss all the characters since there are more characters mentioned in the character section then used in the summary. 98.21.56.166 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)pem

What Happened in Their Marriage?

Many times many readers ponder what happened for the wife to be relieved that her husband had passed. It was a correlation to both the time period and the way men perceived woman back in the 1800's. The thought of a woman being able to survive without a man was a distant thought among many civilians back in that time. Women were often stuck at home while the husbands went to work. It was thought of between women at the time that the death of their husbands would bring them "freedom" and therefore Kate Chopin's "The Story of an Hour" resonated with a lot of women at the time, but not men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BcanaryHasADesirableNeckBeard (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see why Chopin's story resonated with a lot of women in this time period for a good reason. Women were often married of to wealthy men for the benefit of their family or otherwise known as arranged marriages. A lot of marriages didn't actually form out of love, but for the reason of a woman having a man to support them in these times since they could not do it themselves. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Critique on Critical Response

In the Critical Response section it says Bert Bender "argues that writing of the 1890s was influenced by Charles Darwin's theory of sexual selection." In regards to the story I don't see a correlation in the two. The response also entails that the story displays the meaning of "love and courtship", and was "altered and became more pessimistic". Lastly it states the attitude is expressed when "Mrs. Mallard questions the meaning of love and ultimately rejects it as meaningless." When did that happen? It wasn't blatantly stated. DWood6 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I also think the piece by Bert Bender does not really correlate with the story. I do not see how sexual selection connects to the story.Kristenn4 (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this because nothing was ever really stated in the story about her and her husband's relationship. We only see how she reacts to his death and that tell's us a a little bit about how she felt about her husband. Also Darwin's theory of sexualslection doesn't apply because again, Chopin never reveals why they married or anyhting about their relationship. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a symbolism section

I wanted to add a symbolism section because I felt that this story has a few. There are more than just the one I elated to which was the open window. Amancini (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with adding a symbolic section. This will help point out some Mrs. Mallard gestures and actions that have true meaning.Kristenn4 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. This article could benefit from a symbolism, or at least a literary techniques section. Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. I feel as though the open window and the feelings Mrs. Mallard was experiencing in the room alone can definitely be symbolic and analyzed.Ztyler460 (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think time is also symbolic as it is stated in the title. Within the hour, Louise's life shifted drastically. She began to dream of freedom and her future, one that she will enjoy. By the end of the hour, she sees that her husband is alive and everything she dreamt about really just got tossed out the (open) "window". Time proves that anything can change with the blink of an eyeAngiekullira (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not even think of the title. You are right Mrs. Mallard's life was made and ruined in just one hour. Dsheth01 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think more symbolism can be seen in nature. Chopin describes, "the tops of trees that were all aquiver with the new spring life. The delicious breath of rain was in the air." This allusion is important because it symbolizes the new freedom Mrs. Mallard has found.Dsheth01 (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a symbolism section but located near the irony section. These two sections would tie in well together since part of the symbolism is ironic aswell. 12.161.6.168 (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)pem

This section should probably be placed after basic information such as the list of characters.Gmora1011 (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

the introduction has a spoiler, therefore I think there should be a warning in the very beginning of spoiler alerts or just remove the last sentence in parentheses Grace05110430 (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the introduction should be re written and not include spoilers.Paytonreis1 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is hard not to spoil the work in the plot summary section of the article. If someone is searching up this article on Wikipedia, the chances are they read the story or are looking for a plot summary.Dsheth01 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

the introduction is good and sums up the main points to the story well and I do not see anything majorly spoiling the story or its plot DylKohe1 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the introductory should contain as much information about the plot as it does considering it should be mainly in the plot summary section. I think its unavoidable to not put spoilers into the plot summary section since it is discussing the entire story. 12.161.6.168 (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)pem

The first 3 sentences of the introduction include publication history which should maybe have it's own section to separate it from the other content listed in the introduction. Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that the story is going to be spolied anyway in the introduction. You can't leave out the important details that shape the story or else people will be confused or have to make assumptions to fill the gaps. Rachelstone2414 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Characters

This section is okay to me, I think it straightforward and simple.Kristenn4 (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC) For this section the characters in the story should be listed and their role in the story. As it is now the character section is a short summary/analysis of Louise Mallard. Devynsouza2072 (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Inconsistent grammar/sentence format in character section. If a full name is shown for one, they should be shown for all etc... Mooodsy (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The names Kate Chopin provided were used. There were no full names used for the supporting characters. Devynsouza2072 (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe the characters section should be placed above the critic section, that way when people are reading the critics section, they will know exactly who the critics are talking about.Cornonthecob44 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, having the character section listed before the critic section would be more logical Tkiss1 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I added clarification that it is Josephine who informs Lousie of her husband's death. Tkiss1 (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be straightforward and simple. An improvement could be made to better rephrase Richards' summary/analysis.Damaris36 (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Movie reference

For the section "Film Adaptation there is no source citing, any reviews or analysis of the film, "The Joy that Kills". To fix this I found an article by the New York Times that reviews the film and gives a brief plot summary of it in addition to going over the themes of the movie. So with that article, it would added as a citation for the film. http://www.nytimes.com/1985/01/28/arts/tv-review-the-joy-that-kills-on-wnet.html Dmant1 (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe this section should be placed directly under Critical responses section for better flow of the article.98.21.56.166 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)pem

There should be a little more explanation on the point of view of the movie98.21.56.166 (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)pem

Analysis Section

I have a few comments about the analysis section.

-First, I think there are a few run-on or lengthy sentences that could perhaps be worded differently to cut down on confusion. I think it would sound better if it was this way: "In the story, Louise says that she loves her husband only 'sometimes.' The article further suggests that her husband was cruel to her. Despite the love she sometimes felt for him, she is relieved to have a new sense of freedom from him."

-I think it is lacking significant details, and could use a symbolism section. The point about the open window feels thrown in at the end and feels out of place. Lflig1 (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with your observations, and the section could also have a more in-depth analysis of the story as well. You can even talk about death and how it was Mrs. Mallard's way of escaping and gaining freedom from her marriage. Nholm2 (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the film adaptation tab is lacking a descriptive summary.

-It seems as though, especially under the analysis section, there is a lack of citations. There is even words in quotations with no citation after. The format of the citations is inconsistent as well, making the article a bit confusing to follow. Mooodsy (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the section, the one about the telegraph, is more about symbolism and does not cite any sources. This is more of a student's analysis of a plot point and thus should be removed unless a source can be found that backs it up. Devynsouza2072 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the last paragraph under the Critical Response section seems to be analysis from an unreliable source since it is not cited and should not be there. Also, the fourth paragraph under the same section contains no citations so that information should also be sourced.Ravenabusjit (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary I added needs review, as I'm not the best at summarizing things. --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Critical response section is off the rails

I do not feel that this article needs a section detailing random observations and bits of analysis by every non-notable academic who has ever written an essay about the meaning of this or that symbol in "The Story of an Hour." I deleted the whole section. I am not sure how you assert that any given one of these long paragraphs necessarily needs to be in the article, or why any number of other academics who have also written essays about Kate Chopin are not quoted in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C803:1300:30B2:13C0:296E:4372 (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by WikiProject Novels and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2010 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)