Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of a Six Weeks' Tour


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 19:34, 28 October 2008.

History of a Six Weeks&

 * Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)

Another in the series of articles I am working on devoted to the works of Mary Shelley! This article has given me a lot of trouble as it describes a rather unusual work&mdash;a travel narrative written by Mary and Percy Shelley&mdash;and I have struggled to explain it clearly. I hope that after the excellent GA review, peer review, and rounds of copyediting that this article has undergone, however, that any rough edges have been smoothed out. I feel that I must point out that I made a conscious decision not to cover the poem "Mont Blanc" to any great extent in this article because that poem has its own article, due to the fact that scholars most often discuss it independently of the texts with which it was originally published. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is lacking any mention that the trip was made during the Year Without a Summer. To quote that article: In July 1816 "incessant rainfall" during that "wet, ungenial summer" forced Mary Shelley, John William Polidori and their friends to stay indoors for much of their Swiss holiday. They decided to have a contest, seeing who could write the scariest story, leading Shelley to write Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus and Polidori to write The Vampyre. Raul654 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took out a lot of those details at the behest of reviewers. I can certainly start adding it back in, though. One concern that was raised by earlier reviewers was that there was a lot of detail in the biography section that was not connected back to the travel narrative by the later part of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My own personal take is that the extraordinary nature of the weather that year (which I never knew about – ya learn something new every day) is reason to include a brief mention. But I leave it to Awadewit's judgment. Scartol  •  Tok  23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it in, then. Interestingly, this fact is far more relevant to the writing of Frankenstein. There are entire academic articles written about how the weather that summer affected the Gothic tone of the novel. :) I didn't see anything like that in the scholarship on the Tour. However, Tour scholarship is in its early stages. Perhaps someday we will have that. Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Sources look good for the most part. I'm slightly concerned about the reliability of http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1070 (ref #16), but given the information, I think it should be fine. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The author is a published academic in the field - see Monika Fludernik and associated Google searches. Also, the Literary Encyclopedia is a peer-reviewed online publication, with an impressive review board which consists entirely of academics. See their list of editors here. I'm not really sure what your concerns are. Awadewit (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, then. I suppose I have it written into my mind that encyclopedias are usually unreliable. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not that encyclopedias are unreliable - in fact, specialist encyclopedias are often highly reliable, since they are usually written by academic experts in the field. The problem with encyclopedias is different. They are a tertiary source (a summary of secondary sources). Since Wikipedia is aiming to be the same thing, it is a problem for a Wikipedia article to rely too much on encyclopedias - Wikipedia cannot summarize a tertiary source and then itself claim to be a tertiary source! We must do the legwork of reading and summarizing the secondary sources! :) However, very selective use of specialist encyclopedias is perfectly acceptable. Awadewit (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I came in at the end of the process to do a peer review, but I could tell Awadewit had injected her trademark blood, sweat, and triumph to the article. As always, her writing is concise without being skimpy; engaging without being tangential; and pleasant without losing its intellectual edge. Kudos to her and other folks involved in the project. Scartol  •  Tok  23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - I was looking for the Mary Shelley link in the "Biographical background" section, and did find the link. But, it was not immediately obvious from a quick glance at the page. I suggest adding a "Main article" link at the top of the section for readers who want more information about her. --Aude (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * She's linked under "Mary Godwin", the first two words in the section. I can see where this could be confusing for those who aren't familiar with her background, however; perhaps "(née Godwin)" should be implemented so others don't make this mistake? María ( habla  con migo ) 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mary Shelley is directly linked in the lead. I'm not sure that the additional names are necessary in the "Biographical background" section. The whole point of calling her "Mary Godwin" in the first sentence of that section is that she was not yet married to Percy Shelley in 1814, so I think it would be strange to use the "nee" nomenclature. We could, however, say something like "Mary Godwin (later Mary Shelley)". Ah! Why were women forced to change their names? Didn't people know it would be annoying for chroniclers later? :) Awadewit (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Lucy Stone had the right idea. :) I personally don't think it's weird to initially refer to her as Godwin since, as you say, she wasn't married to Shelley at that point, but (again) I know the history.  If Aude didn't know, it's possible others might be confused, as well.  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A better solution: I have added "Further information" links at the top of the section and delinked the names of Mary Godwin and Percy Bysshe Shelley. Awadewit (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - The further information links are perfect. Although I'm not knowledgeable in literature, this article is very informative, well-written, the sources look good, and I believe it meets FA criteria. --Aude (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: I participated in the PR, but the article has come along leaps and bounds since then. I found it to be well written (as per usual), informative, accessible, and comprehensive.  A very nice article about a little known work.  Great job! María ( habla  con migo ) 12:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 *  Comments, leaning to Support I thoroughly enjoyed this elegant article. My comments are generally of a minor nature and should be resolved very easily.
 * The sense in which you use the word sublime might need a word of explanation at first mention. Readers may have a quotidian view of its meaning ("jolly nice", etc) rather than a philosophical one. I know the link is there, but links are sometimes ignored.
 * "Sublime" is defined in first time it is used in the article: Almost all of the passages describing the sublime are in Percy’s words.[16] Passages describing God in nature, experiences of terror and awe, the transportation of the soul, and particularly the feeling of being overwhelmed by the majesty of nature, are Percy's. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not obvious, when reading, that the second sentences above is merely underlining the previous one. The connection would be clearer if the sentences were combined, linked by an mdash, with [16] joining [17] at the sentence's end: Almost all of the passages describing the sublime are in Percy's words&mdash;passages describing God in nature, experiences of terror and awe, the transportation of the soul, and particularly the feeling of being overwhelmed by the majesty of nature, are Percy's[16][17] Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I found the sudden adoption of numbered notes (i) to (iv) within the text a bit disconcerting, and wonder why this was thought necessary.
 * I'm sorry, I don't understand - I only see numerals. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the Composition and publication sentence mentions "four major types of change", which are then enumerated as (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) within the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clearly delineate the four major types of changes. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, obviously....what I was wondering about was why (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) rather than first, second, third, fourth. But what the hell, I'm supporting anyway, so no great problem here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Description section is over-complicated, containing both a semicolon and a colon, which I find jars the flow. Could the semicolon be a full stop?
 * Changed. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "extatic" is spelt thus in the quote. If that is how she spelt it, I think it needs a (sic), to stop pedants like me worrying endlessly.
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "empirical experience" - possible tautology; is any experience not empirical?
 * Some people might argue that spiritual or emotional experiences are different. I wanted to emphasize the fact-gathering and observational nature of these experiences. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though to me "empirical" covers all experiences, not just physical/observational ones. And I still find the phrase "empirical experiences" a bit of a mouthful. But OK. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can suggest a better wording, I would certainly be all ears. I tried to think of something yesterday, but I fear "empirical observation" falls prey to the same problem. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The caption to the Mary Wollstonecraft image doesn't make it clear that this is indeed she. As it has a slightly androgynous appearance, perhaps this could be clarified?
 * It isn't enough that her name is "Mary"? And that she is wearing a dress? :) Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is, two different Marys are mentioned in the caption... Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Caption now reads "The group read...", so now there is only one "Mary". Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "William Wordsworth's 1850 The Prelude..." gives the impression that he wrote it then, rather than half a century earlier. Again, I know the link covers this, but...see above comment.
 * It is not worth explaining that Wordsworth wrote three different versions of this poem, one in 1799, one in 1805, and one in 1850, and that some parts of the earlier versions carried over and some did not. It is opening a Wordsworth can o' worms. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a discussion of the Preludes history, only something like: The third canto of Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, and the 1850 published version of William Wordsworth's "The Preludes", follow a similar course. Should you choose to leave it as it is, you still need to consider commas after "Pilgramage" and "Prelude", otherwise it reads as though "third canto" applies to both. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "1850 published version" is not really necessary here (and frankly, the source does not distinguish between the unpublished and published 1850 versions). The point is that it is the 1850 version. Rearranged sentence to avoid canto confusion. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The David picture doesn't seem related to the text, other than that both mention Napoleon. Is it really necessary?
 * I think it is a good representation of a the sublime Napoleon that the Shelleys are reacting against. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be worth extending the caption to make this point. Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't. It would be OR. Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, it is slightly odd to see the precise subject of the article listed among the sources. I would have thought this would be taken as read.
 * It is used as a source in the "Description" section, for example, so it has to be listed as a source. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was told that in articles about books, plays, etc, any plot description details didn't have to be cited to the work. But you know the form better than I do. Just as a point of interest, why are Percy's and Mary's names bracketed in the list of sources? Brianboulton (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article uses direct quotations from the Tour, which absolutely must be cited. Percy's and Mary's names are bracketed because they are not included as author names on the original text. The brackets indicate that the information is an editorial addition (like brackets in a quotation). Awadewit (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These quibbles aside, congratulations on a quality article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.