Talk:Proserpine (play)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

GA Review, initial comments
I shall be reveiwing this article. Before I prepare detailed comments on the text there are a couple of general points:
 * Pronunciation: Perhaps not all of your readers will be aware of how Proserpine is usualy pronounced, so it might be as well to have a pronunciation indicator after the title in the lead;
 * I myself do not know how it is pronounced. I will ask a Shelley scholar and find out. However, these things are rarely agreed upon. Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it is four syllables: Pro-ser-pin-ee, with the accentuation on second syllable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this is correct, but I am currently rereading the play to see if there are any places where "pine" rhymes with "wine". Do you know how to write this out in the proper phonetic spelling for the article? Awadewit (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, one of PBS's lyrics suggests that "Proserpine" should rhyme with "wine". However, this might only be a poetic conceit. I think we should include both pronunciations. The scholar I consulted thought the pronunciation was probably "peen", but suggested I check for rhymes. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually know how phonetic spelling is done, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find out. The fact that other authorities suggest other pronunciations complicates things. One possibility is a footnote saying that there are different ways of pronouncing the name. However, my feeling is that this is not a GA issue; as with the images, you may wish to develop this point when taking the article forward to featured status, but I think we can leave it for the time being. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Images: I can't help feeling that a picture of a book that looks like the book that Proserpine was first published in, is a poor choice as the lead image - almost any of the others would have been better, in my opinion, or even a stack of the two Shelleys. Can you give this some further consideration?
 * I have already contacted one of the handful of libraries that owns the original to ask for a scan of the title page of the Winter's Wreath and the first page of Proserpine. However, this process will take a while, since it is a rare books library. Awadewit (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be back with some detailed comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review, detailed comments
Having read the article carefully, I have numerous concerns, which have listed below.


 * There are a couple of sentences in the lead which need rewording for clarification:
 * "Gender concerns are present in the generic distinctions within the play as well". I’m sorry, I’ve no idea what that means. Can you make the same point in a different, clearer way?
 * Reworded: The genres of the text reflect a concern with gender issues as well. Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearer, though still a challenge for the average reader, I suspect. But I accept there are limits to the extent to which you can dumb down prose, so no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Percy’s contribution is in the traditionally male-dominated form of the lyric…" This wording seems a little unnecessarily combative. You express the point better, later in the article.
 * This is a pretty standard way to describe the lyric in this context. I'm not sure I see anything combative about it. The language accurately reflects the language of the scholars who discuss this text and this form. Men did dominate this form. No two ways about it, I'm afraid! Awadewit (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but could you make it "traditionally male-dominated lyric form" (or better still, "lyric verse" form? That would certainly clarify it for me. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in para 2 you refer to "Shelley". It’s going to be awkward when both of your authors have the same surname. I would generally stick to the practice you seem to have adopted, of calling them Percy and Mary, with only odd deviations from this. You could occasionally refer to Percy as Shelley, since he is widely known as that, but I’d avoid calling Mary by her surname.
 * Names are a particular problem in this article. I wasn't sure if I liked referring to the authors as "Percy" and "Mary" because it is so causal, but it seemed like the best solution. I have also thought about repeating "Percy Bysshe Shelley" and "Mary Shelley" constantly. Referring to PBS as "Shelley" and MS as "Mary", however, is not an option. Mary Shelley scholars have made a particular point about how writers who do that demean and belittle Mary Shelley and her writings. We cannot replicate that problem here! Awadewit (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have to leave this to you, as I'm less aware that you are of what is acceptable. I personally don't find "Percy" and "Mary" casual - rather, it seems the best device to avoid confusion. I suppose for occasional variety you could call them respectively "PBS" and "MWS", which would be equality of treatment. However, provided there are no instances of confusion, whatever you decide will do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Much scholarship solves the problem by using PBS and MWS, but I thought it might be confusing for readers unfamiliar with the authors. I have stuck with "Mary Shelley" and "Percy Shelley", except where "Mary" and "Percy" seemed more appropriate. This is what we did at Mary Shelley, so I thought it was a good idea to keep the articles consistent (I'm working towards a featured topic). Awadewit (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

**Image is barely relevant to the article.
 * Background
 * Removed. If I add more on The Cenci to this article, perhaps it will become relevant. :) Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First sentence is awkward, and innaccurate: "By 1816, the Shelleys were living in Italy and in 1818 and 1819, two of their young children died: Clara and William". First, they did not move to Italy until March 1818. Secondly,  it’s not a "by" sentence – it should start "In 1818…". Thirdly, the two separate facts of the sentence (their living in Italy and the loss of their children), need a better linkage than "and".  Thus I suggest: "In March 1818 the Shelleys moved to Italy, where within a year their infant children, Clara and William, had both died".
 * Horrifying! I must have mistyped. Incorporated your suggestion with a minor tweak "two young children" (see ages of children at death in Mary Shelley). Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mary Shelley revived a bit…" The "Shelley"" is unnecessary - just Mary will do - and "revived a bit" is informal and, in these circumstances, inappropriate. "…recovered to some extent…" might be better.
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Despite the overwhelming grief caused by the death of her two children" is unnecessary, since this grief has just been mentioned in the previous para. This para should begin: "Mary continued to study and read, as she had throughout her life".
 * I think this helps connect the two paragraphs together. Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In which case, to avoid repetition you could begin, simply: "Despite her overwhelming grief, Mary continued..." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * She "exposed herself to..."? A very clumsy expression, I think. Try something like: "Between 1818 and 1820 she absorbed a considerable amount of drama," – and you can then combine with the next sentence: "…reading many of William Shakespeare’s plays, some with Percy."
 * Excellent suggestion. Incorporated. Awadewit (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

**Far too many "Shelley’s" in this section. I’d lose them all, except in relation to the biography, using just the first names ***This is where the casual tone starts to become a problem. Referring to an author by first name only sounds horrible to my ears. I've tried to reduce the use of names, however. Awadewit (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC) **What does "Her efforts to publish the play in this venue" mean?
 * Composition and publication
 * I’m a bit puzzled as to how a fraction of manuscript can apparently show Percy and Mary working side by side.
 * It shows both of them writing together - possibly responding to each other. I'm trying to get a copy of the transcription right now, but the book is currently "missing" from my library. Awadewit (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you then say "a fraction of illustrated manuscript"? Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not an illustrated manuscript, though. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a major point, but to satisfy my curiosity - how can a non-illustrated manuscript fragment show them writing together and responding to each other? Am I misunderstanding something?
 * I assume it looks something like this talk page - PBS and MS responding to each other in words. I'm not quite sure why this is so confusing. Awadewit (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose, to my literal-minded self, "shows" suggests some visual imagery. Had the wording been that the manuscript "demonstrated" that they were workin together, etc, I wouldn't have questioned the point. But I've no wish to prolong this. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "demonstrated". Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Her efforts to publish in the periodicals mentioned. Awadewit (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then "venue" is surely not the right word? No definition of it in my (extremely comprehensive) dictionary corresponds to this meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "these periodicals". Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Plot summary: This section is seriously inadequate.
 * The image caption is The Rape of Persephone. Who is Persephone? What has she got to do with this story? She hasn’t previously been mentioned and she doesn’t figure in the plot summary.
 * Proserpine is the Roman name for Persephone. Where do you think this should be mentioned in the article? Awadewit (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right at the start. (Greek: Persephone) should appear immediately after the first mention of Proserpine. Likewise, (Greek: Demeter) should appear after first mention of Ceres. In the text, except for quotations, you should stick to Prserpine and Ceres (which I think you do, actually). Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Later) Actually, this suggestion won't work, since Proserpine at the start of the lead is the play's title. Perhaps a sentence at the end of the lead" "The Greek forms of the names Proserpine and Ceres are, respectively, Persephone and Demeter". Or perhaps a footnote to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See what you think of the little notes in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that does it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

**As to the summary itself, it appears somewhat inconclusive. Does the play end at the point you describe?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "inconclusive", but yes the play does end with Ceres making a statement about the seasons. Awadewit (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What were the reasons for the choice of these two particular blank verse illustrations?
 * I thought it was important to have some quotations to give a flavor of the poetry. A plot summary of a drama in blank verse really obscures the poetic form, if you know what I mean. However, Wikipedia seems to demand a plot summary. I tried to choose dramatic moments in the play (high points, if you will) but also sections whose verse would be easy to follow for the average reader. I also thought it was important to include the "winter blight" quote, because it figures in a lot of the scholarship I read. Awadewit (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a little difficult, from this summary, to see how the story has been used to "re-define, reaffim and to celebrate female consciousness", as claimed in the lead. It is equally difficult to detect the themes which are discussed in the Themes section, below.
 * In my opinion, there are three issues here. The first issue is that this play is really a poem. Summarizing a poem is impossible because the themes are found in the words themselves and that is what literary scholars draw on to make their claims (such as the "winter blight" line). The second issue is that there might not be enough evidence for the claim Gubar and other feminist literary critics are making. I myself, though I am a graduate student in this field and I study eighteenth-century literature (and dabble in Romanticism), do not accept all of the arguments presented in this article. However, they are the published, accepted readings of this play. Gubar's argument, in particular, has been influential in shaping the scholarship around this play. It is cited in almost every article I read. The third issue is that the "Plot summary" is never going to easily map onto the "Themes" section. "Themes" are, of course, separate from plots and the two sections are actually explaining different things. The plot is essentially "what happens in the play" and the themes are more "the meaning of what happens in the play". Awadewit (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the light of these explanations, I intend to read over the plot summary again, with my now-expanded awareness, to see if my first impressions were justified. I suspect they were not. On the other hand, I may have to ask you to explain your explanation. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

*Genre
 * "Genre", as far as I know, means "category". Is this the best title for this section?
 * It means "type of literature", such as novel, play, poem, etc. This is the absolutely the best title for this section. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Genre" means type or category. "Literary genre" means type of literature. That, IMO, would be absolutely the best title for the section. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "Literary genre" is redundant in an article about literature (besides, scholars really do say "what genre does this piece of literature belong to?" not, "what literary genre does this piece of literature belong to?"). Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

***That the play is a "verse drama" in "blank verse" which contains two "lyric poems" needs to be established in the article for it to be in the lead (the only other time all of this info is mentioned). Also, to describe the genre properly, these facts need to be explained. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence may be deleted since these facts have already been established.
 * OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I note an improved prose quality in this section, but find it hard to relate the claims made in the first para here, to the plot summary as given above.
 * The prose probably improves because this is what I write about in my "real" life. :) Let's look at the claims:
 * Percy’s poems help emphasise the mythic nature of Prosperine’s story - We could quote large sections of Percy's lyrics to demonstrate this, but I did not feel that this small point was worth the extensive quotation it would require.
 * Mary's drama consists of details, such as carefully-described flowers - The flowers are mentioned in the plot summary, albeit not the lines describing them. Again, this would require quotation to actually show that they were "carefully described".
 * Empathetic dialogue - The plot summary shows the women talking to each other, but does not demonstrate the sense of empathy claimed here. Again, this would require much quotation.
 * I decided not to include all of these quotations because they would be extensive and, frankly, reading poetry is very difficult for many people. I tried to limit the number of quotations to where I thought it would be the most helpful. Let me know if you think more quotations should be added. Being that I love literature, I love quotation, but the style that literature articles have developed on Wikipedia probably rightly shies away from too much quotation. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll look at this with a fresh perspective, after I have re-read the plot summary.Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "romanticist" should not be capitalised
 * Yes it should - it is referring to the "Romantic" period. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a semicolon followed immediately by a dash, as: "…embrace;-her nymphs.." etc. It’s in a quote – is that exactly as the original appears?
 * Yes. Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cox argues that Midas and Proserpine are "a mythological diptych that indites (??) on stage the forces of oppression". I don’t know what your readers will make of such a sentence, but it certainly baffles me.
 * "Indites" is a word, by the way - it means give literary or formal expression to. I have simplified the whole thing: He argues that Midas and Proserpine is a pair of mythological dramas that dramatizes "the forces of oppression". Awadewit (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The simplification is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Themes
 * "…she foregrounded women". I’ve never met the verb "to foreground"; is this general Am-Eng, or just invented? It seems a little bit inelegant.
 * It is the language of literary criticism. It seemed better than "she placed women at the center" or some such. Suggestions? Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "Emphasized the roles of..." {Foregrounding sound like something violent is being done). Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to be stronger than this. Shelley completely changed the focus of the myth - what she did was kind of violent, in a literary way. :) Changed to "placed women and their power at the centre of the narrative". Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, this section seems to be a coherent analysis of the play, but again I find it hard to relate this to the plot section. The comparison with Midas in the last paragraph is perhaps outside the scope of the article.
 * The comparison with Midas is important. Scholars continually make it. Shelley didn't write any other plays and these were both written at the same time, so it is kind of obvious to compare them. I'll try to find someone saying this in print! Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean Mary Shelley didn't write any more plays. I don't think, on reflection, that you need say any more about the Midas/Proserpine comparison; you mention a connection in the lead, which is followed through here. Good enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Legacy and reception
 * *First sentence, asserting a female literary tradition, needs a citation
 * The citation is the same as the sentence coming after it, which explains that tradition. No need for the extra footnote, I don't think. Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lead, you refer to a "literary tradition which uses the story of Ceres and Proserpine as a way to redefine, reaffirm and celebrate female consciousness", citing this to Susan Gubar. Now, using the same Gubar citation, you say it is the myth of Demeter and Persephone that is redefining, reaffirming, etc.  Why the discrepancy, and who, incidentally, is Demeter?
 * Demeter (Greek) = Ceres (Roman) and Persephone (Greek) = Proserpina (Roman). Some of the writers Gubar talks about use the Demeter/Persephone names and some use the Ceres/Proserpina names. The myth is the same. A footnote on this is perhaps in order? Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * footnote shouldn't be necessary if the name forms are clarified in the lead, as I have suggested. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe they are clarified now. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Last para: "explains" and "he has decided" should be "explained" and "he had decided" (we’re talking about 1922 here)
 * This is what is called the "literary present". When discussing texts, one usually talks about them in the present tense as much as possible. (All sorts or problems erupt when discussing them in the past tense.) The only parts that should be discussed in the past/past perfect are those that actually happened in the past (publication, composition, etc.). Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the "literary present" argument is to be used, then it should be consistent throughout the paragraph. "Elizabeth Nitchie writes", not "wrote". Perhaps the para should begin "In his first publshed transcription of Proserpine, A. Koszul argues" - and I am sure that the following "that" is not part of the quote. And even with the literary present consistent throughout, I still think it's "he decided", not "he has decided". Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Literary present fixed. It is not "his first published transcription", it is "the first published transcription", so that particular wording will not work. The "that" is part of the quotation - I double-checked. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Critics have either only paid attention to Percy Shelley’s poems or dismissed the plays". This doesn’t seem like an "either/or" sentence, and I don’t really understand it.
 * There were basically two reactions to these plays: value them for PBS's poems OR ignore them all together. Suggestions for how to phrase this better? Awadewit (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: "Critics have either paid attention only to Percy Shelley's poems, or they have ignored the plays altogether".
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Notes: Reference should be in the form (e.g.) Gubar, p. 103 or, in the case of a page range, Seymour, pp. 232–33, using ndash, not hyphen. You should combine references, e.g. [3], [4] and [5], which are to the same page or page range of a source. See WP:cite
 * Using "p" is optional and I usually don't do it. It requires unnecessary extra work.
 * Well, I like p. and pp., but it's up to you.


 * I usually have User:Brighterorange run his dashbot over articles before I take them to FAC - I will do the same here. I can't be bothered to add an "en-dash" to page ranges manually! :)
 * That's the spirit!
 * I will combine references when all of the research and writing is completed. I find that doing this type of thing early in article development only causes headaches later when notes are removed or moved around. Awadewit (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Biblography: Books etc that have not been cited as sources should be listed separately as "Further reading". All books should have ISBNs except the 1922 one. I suggest you use Template:Cite journal for the journal sources.
 * There is no need to split the "Bibliography" as I will be using all of the sources eventually for this article. :)
 * Rest of ISBNs added.
 * Cite journal is not required, has restrictions that I dislike, and all of the journal citations here are formatted to match the MLA citation style of the rest of the "Bibliography" (something "cite journal" can't do). Awadewit (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All above understood. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will await your responses to the above. The review will be "on hold" for seven days to allow for a full resolution of these issues. Please leave a message on my talkpage when you are ready to engage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I will do some re-reading, and get back to you. Probably tomorrow. May I say, it's a pleasure to review an article like this, rather than some...well, never mind. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional review comments
 * In addition to the points unstruck above, having re-read the article I would like some further clarification, relevant to the plot summary.
 * Are we to assume that Proserpine remains forever imprisoned in the underworld? If not, how was she released?
 * No, Proserpine comes out every six months - that is why there is spring. This is the myth explaining the turn of the seasons. Should I explain this more clearly? Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is an essential part of the plot summary, and does a lot to increase understanding of the story. As you say later, Shelley may have presumed understanding of the myth on the part of her readers, but that can't be presumed now, with wikipedia readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ceres promises an infertile earth until Proserpine is returned to her (this is presumably the "winter blight" you refer to). She is seemingly advocating a collective punishment on the entire world, as retribution for Pluto's abduction. Does this not conflict with the image of Ceres' "lovingkindness, and willingness to sustain life"?
 * It may, but there you go, literature is never simple and we are simplifying for the sake of a general audience here. In general, Ceres is associated with life and Pluto is associated with violence and death. (However, I see the glimmerings of a literary critic in you! You could write a good paper about how Ceres's violence actually undercuts this apparent feminist reading!) Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My pen is poised. Let's get the review over first, though. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Was Ceres' promise effected, and did the earth, supposedly, remain infertile?
 * The play does not go into that, but, remember the Shelleys would have assumed that the audience knew the myth, so they would not have felt it necessary to go into this - it is assumed that Ceres's promise goes into effect - we experience winter. :) (This is all predicated on the merging of fiction and reality, of course.) Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to "rape" in the image caption is unexplained in the plot summary. If it is significant enough to be the subject of the image, surely some reference to the incident should be made in the plot summary?
 * I am going to reread the play one more time. I doubt it says "Proserpine was raped", though. Again, the audience is supposed to know the myth. The rape is implied because that knowledge is assumed.
 * Re note above: no knowledge by wikipedia readers should be assumed. The point is, the reference to "rape" in the caption should be supported, in some way, in the text. If the rape is a part of the myth which Shelley chose not to incorporate into her play "for children", then should the image be in the article?
 * I actually thought a lot about what image to include here. I like this one because of the flowers - Mary Shelley spends a lot of time focusing on flowers in her poetry. Also, I cannot help the name of the painting - it is called The Rape of Persephone, apparently. I actually doubt MS chose to leave out the rape because this was a children's text - children would have read versions of the myths and known the story. In my opinion, the choice had more to do with gender power relations. I've read 18th-century children's books with explicit rapes in them. It was a different time with different conventions. If, however, you can find a better image, I would be happy to include it. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mention somewhere that apart from a brief appearance by Ascalaphus, the drama has no male characters. In the plot summary, Jove appears to have a significant speaking part.
 * Oops. I forgot to mention that was Iris speaking. Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

These, and the other unstruck points, above, are the outstanding issues on which I await responses. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding points
From the GA perspective, the only outstanding points relate to the plot summary. It is necessary to make some reference to Proserpine's six-monthly paroles, otherwise the story is incomplete. It is also necessary for you to decide what to do about the rape. Otherwise, all is well. I await your final responses. Brianboulton (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither the six-monthly paroles nor the rape are mentioned in the play. Incorporating them into the plot summary would therefore be misleading. I have therefore adjusted the "Themes" section to better explain the foundational myth and to make it even more explicit that Ovid's version of the myth has a rape in it while Mary Shelley's version only has an implied one. Awadewit (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

GA final comments
I think, after a lengthy (and enjoyable) GA review, that all that remains is for me to confirm that the article now meets all the GA criteria, and therefore passes. I look forward to some further development in the article, and to meeting it again. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)