Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Shelley

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 04:29, 27 June 2008 [1].

Mary Shelley

edit
Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk); qp10qp (talk)


Co-nomination We are happy to nominate this article on an important Romantic writer, whom most will know as the author of Frankenstein. As we researched and wrote this article, we were delighted to learn about all of Mary Shelley's other works and we hope the reviewers will enjoy reading about them as well. Mary Shelley's life is the stuff of melodrama, but we have attempted to write that story in a subdued tone and to keep the wild speculation that often creeps into the story of the Shelleys at bay. This article has been peer-reviewed by several excellent Wikipedians. We thank them for their considerable efforts. Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) qp10qp (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Current ref 174 the ODNB ref, you say "retrieved on" but there is no link to the article.
Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't link to the ODNB because it was a subscription source available to so few people - are we linking there now? Awadewit (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do, with a note that it's subscription required. I guess folks in the UK get access to it through their library cards. It's also a printed work, so you can format it like I do at Hubert Walter, giving it as a book with a convience link to the online version. If you don't want to link to it, you should probably remove the "retrieved on" date though, that was the point of my comment. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those lucky Brits! I had no idea! Linked. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • For the WikiSource link in the first image's caption, use [[wikisource:article|article]] notation instead of the external link notation, because the external link icon will then disappear. I believe this is preferred because Wikimedia project links are considered more "safe", just like linking internally to other Wikipedia articles.
  • For "Selected list of works" section, perhaps use {{main}} instead of the intro text that is there now.

Gary King (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I participated in the article's peer review, and found the article to be interesting, well-referenced, and engagingly written. It certainly appears to meet all the FA criteria. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments This looks pretty good so far. I'm not done reading it yet, but you clearly know what you're doing. I do have a few questions:

*"The Shelleys left Britain in 1818 for Italy, where their second and third children died before Mary Shelley gave birth to her last, and only surviving child, Percy Florence."
Should there be a comma after "surviving"? I'm not sure myself.
Rather than over-comma the sentence, I have removed one, leaving: "... before Mary Shelley gave birth to her last and only surviving child, Percy Florence." qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that works!
  • "A year after Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published what he felt were sincere and compassionate Memoirs (1798) of her."
Is it correct to capitalize and italicize "Memoirs" in this context? That struck me as a little strange.
This sentence has been knocked about a bit. I see your point and have changed the sentence to: "A year after Wollstonecraft's death, Godwin published his Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798), which he intended as a sincere and compassionate tribute. qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me.
  • "He often took the children on educational outings, and they had access to his library and to the many intellectuals who visited him, including the Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the former vice-president of the United States, Aaron Burr."
I don't think there should be a comma before "Aaron Burr", since he wasn't the only US vice-president.
Done. qp10qp (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK!
  • "Scholars have speculated that she may have been sent away for her health, to remove her from the seamy side of business, or to introduce her to radical politics."
I'm curious as to why she'd be sent away for her "health". Do you have any more information about that?
The documentation is vague. She had spent some time at Ramsgate, where her father hoped the sea air would help with "a weakness" in her arm. He mentioned the arm when he sent her to Scotland: "You are aware [he wrote to Baxter] that she comes to the seaside for the purpose of bathing. I should wish that you would inquire now and again into the regularity of that. She will also want some treatment for her arm, but she has Mr. Cline's directions completely in all these points, and will probably not require a professional man to look after her while she is with you. In all other respects except her arm she has excellent health ...." But it is not clear that she was sent to Scotland because of her arm and the need to sea-bathe for health reasons. If we said that she might have been sent because of a weakness in her arm, that could sound a little odd, so "health" was the word used. Muriel Spark seems to think the arm was merely Mary's excuse to get away from her stepmother, but, to lapse into wild original research here, I suspect that the trouble was connected with the brain problem that eventually killed her. Headaches and bouts of paralysis on one side were to trouble her from at least fifteen years before she died. qp10qp (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. I guess "health" will do, unless someone has a better idea. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*"'It was acting in a novel, being an incarnate romance', Mary Shelley recalled in 1826."
Should that last comma be inside the quotation marks? I don't usually use "logical punctuation" outside of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure, but that punctuation seems wrong to me. Zagalejo^^^ 23:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. qp10qp (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary Shelley's last full-length book was Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842 and 1843, written in the form of letters and published in 1844, which recorded her travels with her son Percy Florence and his university friends."
The "which.." clause comes at an awkward point in the sentence. Could this be reorganized at all?
Changed to "Mary Shelley's last full-length book, written in the form of letters and published in 1844, was Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842 and 1843, which recorded her travels with her son Percy Florence and his university friends." Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Zagalejo^^^ 20:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Mary Favret writes, 'the disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself'.
How about: "As Mary Favret writes, '[T]he disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself.'"
I'm not sure the change is necessary. Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only use that form when quoting literary, documentary, or seminal texts. qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that the quoted portion works as an independent clause. Thus, it should begin with a capital letter, and the punctuation should come within the quotation marks. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the brackets around the "T" may not be necessary, but the "T" should still be capitalized. At least, according to Turabian: "If the quotation is set off syntactially from the text by a comma, period, or colon, the first word is capitalized, even though it is lowrcase in the original." (5.26, sixth edition). Zagalejo^^^ 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in the original source is: "For a Victorian reader, the disembodied Percy identifies the spirit of poetry itself, and poetry becomes 'a phantom-world, a place of ignes fatui and spectral illusions'." Our sentence is of a type which usage guides will never agree on. The full stop is outside the closing quotation marks because the quotation, though (in your words) it "works as" an independent clause, is not a full sentence in the original source. Burchfield's edition of Fowler (1998) says: "If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise." I concede that Turabian and Chicago say different, but both acknowledge variation. On the capital letter, Chicago says that you "may" change it. Turabian (p 352) also allows flexibility: "Whenever you quote, you must record the exact wording, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation of the source, even if they do not follow the quidelines in this manual. When you incorporate the quotation, however, you may modify it to fit the syntax of the surrounding text ...." So, though I understand the principle you are advocating, I'd rather retain the present style, which doesn't give the impression that the quotation begins with a capital letter or ends with a full stop. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Qp here - I think the changes may mislead the reader regarding the original quotation and since they are purely stylistic changes, I don't think we should risk that confusion. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, MLA style also requires that the period be outside the quotation marks in certain situations, so I guess that sentence isn't as strange as I thought it was. Wikipedia's own MOS is sort of vague about what to do here, but this isn't something that should prevent the article from being promoted, so I'll just let it go. If it it turns out that the punctuation and capitalization have to be changed, then that could be done with minimal effort. Zagalejo^^^ 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point: I like how the article emphasizes Shelley's non-Frankenstein works, but at the same time, I think the article fails to stress just how popular the Frankenstein story is outside of academia. All I see is a brief bit in the lead about "theatrical and film adaptions". I'm sure you don't want a big list of cultural references, but I'd still like to see something more about Frankenstein's role in popular culture. (If nothing else, a brief mention of the James Whale film would be nice.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qp - what are your thoughts here? Perhaps we could add another sentence or two, but I am loathe to add much more as this isn't the Frankenstein article and Mary Shelley wasn't involved with any of these adaptations. Awadewit (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a sentence or two at the beginning of the last paragraph. Maybe start the paragraph with "in the twentieth century ...". We could justify this, since the Cambridge Companion has an essay on it (shocking to see screenshots in a CC!). qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a first stab at the sentence. I'm not sure I like it, though. Perhaps you could take a second stab at it? Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it. Seems to do the job and fit in well there. qp10qp (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that is sufficient. I'm not sure if I really like it at the beginning of that paragraph, but I can't think of a better place to put it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A very convincing article for the general reader. Here are my observations which may be ignored without harm:
    • It is long, but I don't think that's a problem. The article is structured in a way that allows those readers interested in "what and how she wrote" to skip to the appropriate section, if they wish, and the same with those readers interested in how her life fit into the tangled web of well-known individuals around her. If I had to pick one weak paragraph: I don't understand what the paragraph beginning "In 1827, Mary Shelley was party to a scheme..." adds. It seems like a paragraph perhaps resulting more from the writers' interest in the subject than fulfilling any biographically important role.
      • We've had problems with this paragraph - Qp what should we do with this material? Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it doesn't seem to fit, but nor did it seem to fit in her life. The matter is given great attention by recent writers, particularly by Betty Bennett—Miranda Seymour has several pages on it. In some ways, the incident is significant beyond Mary Shelley (I think Dods should even be a red link), because you don't hear about this sort of thing very often. One reads hints that Mary Shelley may have been bisexual or a lesbian herself, but not strong enough ones to justify emphasizing this in an encyclopedic article, in my opinion (if we started going into all the speculation out there about the Shelleys' love lives, we'd never be able to stop). Both Seymour and Spark talk of her closeness with Jane Williams, and there is a theory that Jane Shelley was in love with Mary Shelley (what a great ruse that would have been, to marry the son of the woman you loved!). This is all very marginal, but I think we'd be making a mistake to cut Mary's involvement in the Dods affair out altogether, because it is a nugget of fact, however carbuncular. qp10qp (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's also one interpretation of Mary Shelley's life that emphasizes the help she gave individual women as evidence of her interest in women's issues and her radicalism. This story is important for that particular interpretation because she helped women who were challenging society's norms. Another reason to keep it. I just wish we could find a way to contextualize the whole incident better. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was sometimes put off by the use of formal names when a simple "father" would have sufficed (or so I think). A distancing effect is created, intentionally or not I don't know, among the characters when this occurs, such that I felt the article to be subtly suggesting, for example, that William Godwin was something less than a "father" to Shelley. Of course, any one example is unimportant in itself, but here are three:
      • "In June 1812, William Godwin sent Mary to stay with the Dissenting family..." In just about any register, wouldn't you say, "Mary's father sent her to stay..."?
      • "...to Mary's genuine surprise, William Godwin refused to have anything to do with her..."; reading this sentence with no context, you'd never imagine a father/daughter relationship existed.
      • "...Mary Shelley enjoyed the stimulating society of William Godwin's circle..."
        • I left this one as the circle would have been associated with Godwin the intellectual, not Godwin the father. I looked through the other instances of Godwin and changed another one as well. Awadewit (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Literary themes and styles" section is excellent and dare I say it, tells us why to care about the figure. Good job. I've been told it's very hard to avoid quoting critics literally in literary criticism sections, but as always, the less the better I'm sure. ;)
  • Thank you, Isolation booth (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. EXCELLENT article. I was drawn in from the first paragraph and didn't even realize I was reading a fairly long article until I was done. Thank you for bringing a fascinating woman and gifted writer to life. Two minor comments:
    • "Mary Shelley was known mainly for her efforts to publish Percy Shelley's works and her novel Frankenstein" - makes it sound as if she was known for trying to publisher her novel rather than for the novel. Perhaps just changing to "and for her novel" would do the trick?
    • Is eloped the proper word to use, since they would be unable to get married?
      • Believe it or not, we actually discussed this. I quote Qp from the article talk page: "That's struck me, too. But the books I read seemed to use this word. I've just checked the dictionaries, and some do allow a looser use of the word to mean "run away with one's lover". Apparently, the derivation is from "aloper", to run away! qp10qp (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)" Awadewit (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder if it would be worth adding a note (or an HTMl comment). On the one hand, the article makes it clear he's still married, but on the other random readers might start trying to change the text for you.Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think we're wedded to the word (as it were), so I've therefore replaced both occurrences. qp10qp (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As anticipated, an excellent article. My concerns below are not significant enough for me to withhold support.

  • There is one sentence early on that bugs me. "Yet, Mary Godwin read these memoirs and her mother's books, and she was raised to cherish her mother's memory." - The yet seems very formal, and I don't reacall seeing that useage of the word yet at the start of a sentence elsewhere. To my mind this makes the prose a little stilted - I had to read it over a couple of times to work out exactly what was meant. The sentence also has some redundancy - the word "she" is not necessary.
Changed to: "Mary Godwin read these memoirs and her mother's books, and was raised to cherish her mother's memory." (sob) qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third paragraphs use the word "however" quite a lot. Consider trimming some or finding alternative words in their place. Keep an eye on this throughout
Great call. Have thinned them out. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not really a complaint, but an article as well written as this often makes me want to click on links to learn more. Are elusive characters like Timothy Shelley, Daniel Roberts, Jane Williams, Maria Mary Dods or Thomas Medwin notable enough for their own articles?
I think so. I predict that within a year they will have them. As an interim measure, I have redlinked Dods and Williams, who seem the worthiest. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "largely responsible for the recovery of Shelley as a writer." - Recovery from what? Unless this is a specific literary term or I have missed something earlier, there is no indiciation thus far that her writing needed recovering. (I see this is discussed in the later "reputation" section, but the sentence should be more fully explained)
It's true that this is not precisely prefigured (though it is strongly implied) in the lead. What do you think, Awadewit? qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Recovery" is a literary term, often used in the context of "recovery projects" that scholars perform to "recover" the now-lost-to-view works of a writer. Mary Shelley's works needed to be recovered because no one was reading them (except for Frankenstein) - they were lost in obscurity. We try to hint at this in the lead: Until the 1970s, Mary Shelley was known mainly for her efforts to publish Percy Shelley's works and for her novel Frankenstein, which remains widely read and has inspired many theatrical and film adaptations. Recent scholarship has yielded a more comprehensive view of Mary Shelley’s achievement. - Should we make this more explicit? Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to "recovery from neglect". qp10qp (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has been adequately addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, the first two sentences of that paragraph pretty much say the same thing. The only major difference is the second mentions psychoanalytic critics. Maybe you can just remove the second sentence, and rework the first to include something about psychoanalytic critcism. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In all, one of the best articles Wikipedia posesses and a massive credit to its authors.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! We are glad you enjoyed it. Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this paragraph just seems to be awkwardly written: Mary Godwin's mother died after giving birth to her, and she was brought up, along with her older half-sister Fanny Imlay, by her father. When Mary was three, Godwin married his neighbour, Mary Jane Clairmont. Godwin provided his daughter with a rich, if informal, education, encouraging her to adhere to his liberal political theories. In 1814, Mary Godwin fell in love with one of her father’s political followers, the married Percy Bysshe Shelley, and the lovers left for France, along with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont. The three travelled through Europe, and when they returned to England Mary Godwin was pregnant. Over the next two years, she and Percy faced ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter. They married in late 1816 after the suicide of Percy Shelley's first wife.

suggested rewrite : After Mary Godwin's mother died giving birth to her, she and her older half-sister, Fanny Imlay, were raised by her father. Mr. Godwin married again when Mary was three, taking for a wife his neighbor, Mary Jane Clairmont. Godwin provided his daughter with a rich, if informal, education and encouraged her to adhere to his liberal political theories. As a young woman, Mary Godwin fell in love with a married man, one of her father's political followers, Percy Bysshe Shelley. Together with Mary's stepsister, Claire Clairmont, they left for France and travelled through Europe; upon their return to England, Mary was pregant. Over the next two years, she and Percy faced ostracism, constant debt, and the death of their prematurely born daughter. They married in late 1816 after the suicide of Percy Shelley's first wife.

I dont intend to vote on this FAC, I was just browsing through the FAC nominations after it was suggested that I participate more in the FAC process. I started to read your article and I thought I might try to help with prose. Take it or leave it, my suggestion should not hold up your FAC. I am just trying to be helpful. NancyHeise (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your help, Nancy! I agree that the paragraph doesn't flow as well as it could. We are trying to introduce everyone here and their relationships to each other. It is all very awkward. I have incorporated some of your suggested changes. Awadewit (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I did a line by line review of this over Skype with Awadewit, and found only minor prose issues, which were promptly fixed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I remember reading this article a year or so ago and being so disappointed; among numerous issues and gaps, the biography basically ended after Bysshe Shelley's death and nearly thirty years of her life was unaccounted for. I'm so glad to see this collaboration was successful in illuminating the very interesting life of this inspirational woman. I had a difficult time reading it with a critical eye, so I can't say I have any suggestions for improvement. Brilliant work, really. María (habla conmigo) 15:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I see absolutely no reason to oppose this article's FAC. Quality writing and sources. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support It's rare to find a tour de force of scholarship that's as pleasant to read as it is enlightening. The superbness of article reflects the constant devotion and meticulous attention of its chief authors. :) Willow (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (FWIW), there is an external jump in the lead image caption. External jumps (even to Wiki sisters) belong in External links or citations. I see someone else asked for this, but it doesn't agree with WP:LAYOUT; I would incorporate that external link into the ref tags. Also note the long thread at WT:FAC about reflist being broken; recommend lowering it to reflist|2, but that isn't required. I've never encountered ref group, and can't find documentation on it; is it possible for notes to use a, b, c ... so they aren't confused with refs 1, 2, 3 ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an external jump? I just thought it was nice to link to the actual text of the poem cited in the caption. It is not necessary for the citation.
  • I changed the reflist to 2 columns.
  • I just copied the refgroup style from another article. I don't know how to change it - I'm sorry. At least in the article, it says "note 1" and "1". Can anyone else help out with this? Awadewit (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An external jump is a link that takes the reader out of en.wiki :-) Technically (WP:El and WP:LAYOUT), we shouldn't do it, but I'm not going to hold up the nom over it. I'm also not going to hold up over the Notes a vs. 1 thing, but I do wish I could figure out where to find the documentation, because it would be nice to be able to change the 1, 2, 3 to a, b, c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed link. I'll try to find someone to work on the notes. Awadewit (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I haven't had time to read the entire article yet, but everything I've read so far is impeccably written and cited. I do have one question though: Is it a good idea for us to be using the experimental grouped references feature in a potential featured article? I see two potential problems with this: 1. The syntax and functionality might change at some point, breaking the article; 2. The use of this feature on such a high profile article will surely lead to it spreading widely across Wikipedia. Are we ready for that to happen? Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group references feature is already used in the action potential article (which is also featured). I'm hoping that WillowW will be able to help me out with it, since she worked with it there. Second, I think it is a great idea. Separating the substantive notes from the 250-odd citations is very helpful for the reader. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do others edit it? (I couldn't figure it out.) I'm not sure anyone noticed at action potential (I didn't). Another system, which works, it at Gettysburg Address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very simple to use. If I can figure it out (make your new ref match the old refs), anyone can. Anyway, let's see what we can dig up before changing the whole system. Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is best to forge ahead rather than be timid and wait for cogs to turn slowly. If this method catches on, it will be a good thing, surely; and it will supersede the method used in, say, William Shakespeare, which looks much the same to the reader but which does not fall into order of its own accord (in other words, if someone cuts a note ref, all the succeeding ones have to be adjusted manually, which is appallingly laborious and demands alert watchlisting). If the method is thought useful, I am sure that ways will be found to make it resilient to breakage. qp10qp (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on our experience over the past few months, the code is robust; I've written some documentation here to explain its various uses. It's extremely unlikely that Steve, a professional programmer, would change the syntax to make it backward-incompatible. I believe that he plans to extend his method, e.g., to allow references within references, but that shouldn't affect its present functioning.
If letters are required instead of the "note" prefix, we could work to implement a simpler solution on the English Wikipedia, but it's not clear to me how fast that could be done. Being based on the existing ref system, and dedicated to a single purpose (explanatory footnotes), the second system would be very unlikely to break or change. Willow (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Superior, as usual. I read it all, though, wary that Awadewit's and Qp10qp's reputations precede them. God forbid anyone think on their 58th FAC they can slack off. But I found it extraordinarily comprehensive and well-written, and accessible for those who are unfamiliar with 19th century literature. Very interesting. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mary_Shelley&oldid=1138466570"