Talk:Einar Jolin/Archive 1
Latest comment: 9 years ago by CaroleHenson in topic GA Review
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Dear Editor.
To the kind person/s helping me getting this article right.
- The original article was written in a very contrived and old fashioned language. I have tried to bring it up to date while staying true to the original. It is written by a Swedish art aficionado, more accustomed to paper than the Internet.
- Due to this it is lacking in clear references. During my translation I found some while digging around and put them where they belong. But like many of the older articles I know that it is not up to par with today's standard on Wiki. But I am a translator and not a researcher.
- While I know many English words and is somewhat familiar with phrases and such, it is always the little things/words that get me in trouble. So please correct them!
- I had no idea what format would be best for the quotes, so I just took the first one. Again not enough knowledge about Wiki-style. Yet.
- A note: In the quotes, "man" and "mankind" is referred to as "she". In Swedish the word for man/mankind is genderless and totally neutral. Jolin always refers to mankind as "she", and therefore I left it like that since it is a direct quote. Even if it might sound a bit wrong in English.
- The guy who wrote the original article is obviously very fond of the artist, and the text is therefore a bit exaggerated and perhaps unnecessary long.
- And since I've struggled with the text for some time I'm probably blind to many other things that are wrong in it, but I hope that is what team work is for.
- I have a Swedish keyboard so I've noticed that sometimes I get the wrong symbols from it. Very annoying!
- The articles marked with the {{ill}}, template are articles I plan to get on with as soon as this one is out of my sandbox. Thanks to Anomalocaris for that suggestion and all the encouragement given!W.carter (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Initial edits
Hi there, I've made a few initial changes to the article, and some further comments below.
- The Wikipedia style guide prefers locations of birth and death to be handled in the article body, not the first sentence of the lead, i.e like this (dd mm yy - dd mm yy), you have also missed out the date of death. Move the place of birth to the "Early life and education section" and the date of death to the "Family and death section" and work them both into the prose.
- There seems to be some other text at the end of the article under the heading "Passive Business Plans". You should move this somewhere else to avoid confusion, particularly for when the draft moves into the main article space.
- Keep an eye on your style. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay and should not reflect your personal views. For example "Although it can sometimes be sensed that this entire ruckus was too much for the refined and elegant Jolin." is not a statement of fact but of opinion, which is why I've removed it.
- Never use words like "famous", this is what's called a "peacock" term, instead use "notable", "best known" etc. Terms like "breathtaking" should also be avoided.
- Words like "atelier" are not familiar to the majority of English readers, in this case I have used "apartment" instead.
- When you assert something to be a fact, you need to provide a citation from a reliable source. For example: "Matisse studies created by the group in the 1910s are considered among the best paintings produced in Sweden during the 20th century." requires attribution to one or more notable source who recorded that opinion in writing.
I'll leave you to do some polishing based on my copyediitng and the points above. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you would like me to take another look. Best, Philg88 ♦talk 06:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree.
Thank you so much for your edits. They are really helpful. I totally agree with you about the style. But then again it is not my style, but the style of the guy who wrote it. There are things in it I would never write in an article for Wiki! So now I'll Be Bold and switch from translator to editor. I'll be in touch as soon as I've done the editing. BTW I looked at all your achievements on your user page, and I'm still in awe that you would consider editing my first major article!
- About the no-use of the word "atelier". Could that be substituted with "studio" instead? The word "apartment" suggests he lived there, which he did not. He only used it for his work.
- Re: Birth and death, I only placed them like that because I saw it in many articles here on Wiki such as Nelson Mandela, George Washington, Brad Pitt, Jimmy Carter, (I figured such articles should be right) but I have re-written it.
- At ref#4 I used the English version of his nickname in the text so that the contrast between the two painters is easier to understand than if I used the Swedish original there, and the English in the footnote.
- I kept the rather colorful descriptions of the paintings since they correspond very well with the art and they are also useful since there are no pictures of the art in the article.
- Oh, one last thing: How do I get my sandbox back? This one´s been converted into a draft and would really like someplace to muck about with another article while this is being reviewed. - W.carter (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- The word atelier could be replaced by studio or workshop: See atelier in Wiktionary.
- to get your sandbox back, go to User:W.carter/sandbox. This will automatically redirect to Draft:Einar Jolin. At the top of the article, just below "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is the line "(Redirected from User:W.carter/sandbox). Click on that, and you'll be on your actual sandbox page, which is currently a redirect. Just click "edit this page" at the top and replace the redirect with your next sandbox. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there, I've done some more work on the draft as follows:
- I've switched "atelier" to "studio workshop".
- Birth and death dates in the lead have been "Wikified".
- I assume that based on Anomalocaris' kind help you now have your sandbox back.
- Another couple of observations:
- Avoid essay type non-neutral statements like:
- "Continental Europe and the teaming art life in Paris held great allure for most young artists at the beginning of the 20th century"
- "Inspiration was everywhere, for Jolin as well as for so many before him like Paul Cézanne and Georges Seurat, but also from all the other contemporary artists gathering from all over the world"
- You may be 100% correct in your assertions, but you cannot include this type of thing in an encyclopedia article unless someone or something notable (i.e. a reliable source) recorded an identical opinion.
- Overall, the referencing needs to improve. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least one reference per paragraph, and more if it is a long paragraph with a lot of detail.
- Many thanks to Anomalocaris and Philg88 for editing and advice. I don´t mind you being pedantic. I totally agree that there should be more references, but again I did not write the original and I do not have access to the books in the reference list so I can´t provide the references. That is for a researcher to do. I can always delete unwanted sections, and I´ll do it. Earlier Anomalocaris advised me "...to contribute to Wikipedia in whatever manner pleases you." So maybe I should just stick to translating well referenced articles, since translating is what I do. - W.carter (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
...and if the gods are smiling upon you, it will succeed.
I bemoaned my fate of having no references for my article to a neighbor. He said: "I think I have some art books that might be relevant..." Lo and behold! He had two of the most important books for the article! So now the draft is littered with references and I don´t know if I wrote them all the right way. I am perplexed on how to name one reference in several places and not just repeat it. It looks messy. And also one book had numerous references, but on different pages. I´m not sure I got that right. - W.carter (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are making good progress. There are several things that need fixing. I believe you are referencing a book using {{cite web}}. Your first reference is
- <ref>{{cite web |url=http://libris.kb.se/bib/1833312 |last=Jolin |first=Einar |title=Einar Jolin. |series=Liljevalchs katalog, 0349-1137 ; 224 |year=1957 |location=Stockholm }} p4.</ref>
- If the information is actually on this web page, the reference is OK. But if the information is actually on page 4 of a book that this web page is describing, you should be using {{cite book}} instead, with the |title= parameter set to the book title and the |page= parameter set to the page number (or |pages= for multiple pages).
- I compliment you for not falling into the academic standard but non-Wikipedia approach of indicating the re-use of the same or similar references with ibid., idem. and op. cit. However, repeating identical references is also not Wikipedia way. If you need to use the above reference more than once, rather than repeating it, name it once, something like this:
- <ref name="Liljevalchs p. 4">{{cite web |url=http://libris.kb.se/bib/1833312 |last=Jolin |first=Einar |title=Einar Jolin. |series=Liljevalchs katalog, 0349-1137 ; 224 |year=1957 |location=Stockholm }} p4.</ref>
- and then reuse it simply
- <ref name="Liljevalchs p. 4"/>
- The closing slash character closes out the <ref> tag without the need for the corresponding </ref>. You don't need to use quotes around the ref name if the ref name has no embedded spaces.
- So, you can improve the references by combining identical references, but then you will still have many similar references that differ only by page number. There are a number of approved Wikipedia solutions to this, and probably the most popular is the approach used in Harriet Arbuthnot, where the footnotes appear in a Notes section with each book named as briefly as possible, usually just by the author's last name, and a page number, and then below that in the References section, each book is fully described.
- This is all explained in Help:Referencing for beginners, especially the under the heading "Alternative system". —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. I tried looking at the help section but it my initial experimentation came out all wrong. You should really be writing that section, your explanation is so much more comprehensible.
- The cite web in question is a link to the book at the Swedish Royal Library data base. I thought it was more accurate than just the book cite. I have also ordered another major book to our small library so I can check more references with it. It´ll take a couple of days before it gets here. I would clean up the ref as you advised, but the superfast User:Philg88 is already at work with it. But now I know what to do when the next book arrives. In the meantime I will read the help and beginners pages more thoroughly. I should be able to understand more of them now. Kind as you are, I can´t be bothering you forever. :)
- Is there a way I can create a page of my own to copy and store all these useful advice, sort of like a note book? I would hate to loose it all if the article gets approved. It would be best to have it on a Wiki formatted page so none of the text gets corrupted. - W.carter (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there, I saw the message above after I had finished the latest round of editing. The referencing isn't finished but what I've done should give you the examples you need to complete it. Some of this advice duplicates what Anomalocaris points out above, other than I haven't used the notes paradigm. Nevertheless, the reference section is a lot more concise now.
- I have used the {{sfn}} template for the book references and <ref name = "XXXX" /> where there are multiple citations.
- Please note when using {{cite book}} "editor" is not the same as "author" (which you mixed up with the reference to Kungliga och Norra begravningsplatserna (vandringar bland berömda personers gravar).
- accessdate is not used with books - only web sites.
- Don't use "date=" when citing books, use "year="
- Hi there, I saw the message above after I had finished the latest round of editing. The referencing isn't finished but what I've done should give you the examples you need to complete it. Some of this advice duplicates what Anomalocaris points out above, other than I haven't used the notes paradigm. Nevertheless, the reference section is a lot more concise now.
- I've also done a bit more copyediting, and my personal view is that you should dump the red links and the {{ill}}s as they detract from readability.
- Once the referencing is done, with a bit more polishing the article will be ready for the main space and hopefully on its way to a B class assessment as a first step. After that, particularly if we can find a couple of images of Jolin's paitings, there is no reason why it cannot became a "Good Article".
- Philg88 ♦talk 09:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- WOW! That was fast! With speed like that you must have some tights and a cape tucked away somewhere. So, a lot more to learn. I will study and proceed with the editing during the week (I have a lot to do at my regular work so it will take some time).
- Some pictures would be nice, there are many on the web but none at Wiki Commons so copyright would be an issue. Not my area of expertise. I could scan one of the books, it´s from 1957 so more than 50 years old, but I don´t know if that counts. I should probably ask at the Teahouse. - W.carter (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No tights or cape, just a magic WikiwandTM :) As long as Jolin's pictures are not uploaded to Commons they can be claimed under English Wikipedia's "Fair Use" criteria. See this Picasso painting as an example. If you find know of suitable images online, please post the appropriate links on my talk page —I know I could do the search myself, but you created the article so it's your call. Once I have image targets I will sort out the required graphic and licensing issues and upload them. Philg88 ♦talk 10:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- regarding Liljevalchs katalog, maybe I am missing something, but I still think you want {{cite book}} and I still think you want to move this to the Bibliography and reference the various pages (4, 5, 7, etc.) using shortened footnotes. By the way, it's fine to use the (´) character on this page, but in articles, use the plain typewriter apostrophe ('). —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Anomalocaris: I agree, the edits I did were as examples of how to use sfn and named references and are not the finalised draft. Philg88 ♦talk 10:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you guys! This is a lot for me to digest and learn, and it will take some time. I will get on with the editing soon, but right now I have a lot to do at my regular work so don´t think I have disappeared if nothing happens for a day or two.
- I know about the (´) vs ('). These characters are not used in Swedish so the (') do not exist on my keyboard and I have to copy and paste it when I´m working on an article. I´m just being lazy and ignore the difference when posting on a talk page.
- The reason I posted the question about pictures at the Teahouse was so I could learn how to do it the right way on my own. I can, and will, post some appropriate links on User:Philg88 talk page, but I can´t rely on you two, my new guardian angles, to do all the work for me. :) - W.carter (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Copyright and paintings
Images of paintings exhibited before 1923 can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as they are no longer covered by copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Last time on Einar Jolin...
So, I have sorted out the ref. in the manner used in Harriet Arbuthnot as suggested by Anomalocaris. Since that is a Featured Article, I could see nothing wrong with that system, and I think it looks very tidy. I've also cleaned up some mistakes that were made simply because you don't speak Swedish.
Having the actual book Liljevalchs Katalog in my hands changed some things. It turns out there are some mistakes in the url. The book is not written by Jolin but by Liljevalchs as a catalogue for the exhibition. This is why I put this name in the ( last= ). The whole thing becomes much more comprehensible then, especially with the references and all. I also found one reference, previously credited to another book, in the Liljevalchs as well. So I substituted it in the ref.list for accuracy.
I am still waiting for the second book to appear, so PLEASE do not do anything to the draft until I've had a chance to use it! You guys are so fast and I am only a newbie. This is my first major article, please remember that. I am thrilled that it might someday be transformed into a good article, and I want it just as much as you do, but this is also my learning curve so it'll take a bit longer that you are used to.
A treat for Anomalocaris: I have bought a new keyboard with the (') included.
I removed all the red links as suggested by User:Philg88. You are absolutely right, it makes for much easier reading. If I ever feel like translating these articles I'll simply have to revisit this article.
About pictures. I've read the Help section about pictures and the "Fair Use", looked at the templates, tried it out and it sure is complicated. As you were so very right to point out, I need help with this and I would very much appreciate it. At least now I have a sporting chance to understand some of what's going on.
I have selected three pictures that ties into the text very nicely. They are all from the Liljevalchs exhibition page. Since I suspect permits have to be obtained it might be easier to deal with a seasoned art venue with close ties to Jolin. Links:
http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/interior-med-ung-dam-ebba-pantzerhielm/
http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/stockholm-fran-soders-hojder/
http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/paronkvist/
Sorry about all the small "save" during an editing session, but I'm always afraid to lose something. - W.carter (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- BTW, during my browsing the Wiki for ideas on how to do things I've stumbled across some articles with translation so bad even I notice it. Thanks be to Higher Beings that I have you guys to guide and correct me! Sometimes I'm really itching to do some correcting or ad a reference I've stumbled upon. But I guess I should butt out until I know more. And I've noticed that some contributors are very proprietorial about their articles. Hope I outgrow that tendency as soon as I have all the references in place and am more up to speed with editing. - W.carter (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- One of the fundamental editing rules of Wikipedia allows you to be bold. Since nothing ever gets deleted (well, that's not strictly true but it will do for the purposes of this conversation), if you make a mistake the previous version can always be restored from the page history. People claiming "ownership" of articles can be a nuisance, but if you are following the rules and are backed up by reliable sources, you will always win the argument in the end. If all else fails there are a number of places where you can voice your concerns. I'm working on the image uploads. Philg88 ♦talk 06:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I've uploaded two of the images under the following licensing conditions:
- File:Einar Jolin - Interiör med ung dam (Ebba Pantzerhielm) 1915.png - US Public Domain as a pre-1923 work
- File:Einar Jolin Stockholm från Söders höjder 1938.png - Fair use claim for use ONLY in the section "Depicting Stockholm"
You can see which templates I have used by viewing the source of the pages.
As for the third picture, this too would have to be uploaded under a fair use claim. Some editors would argue that given the length of the article one fair use image is sufficient. Hence I have not uploaded it. If you wish to do so, you will need to write a rationale similar to the one I wrote for Stockholm från Söders höjder.
I think that the article is ready for a move to the main space now, and time is important because of the current red links to Einar Jolin on the image pages. Use it or lose it!
Philg88 ♦talk 08:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, if you think it's time then do it. (...scary!) I can always put the rest of the refs in place once it's up and running. I'm ok with two pictures, just thought I'd give you some options in case of trouble with the permits. Hope I put the pictures in the right place, editorial and timeline-wise. Otherwise feel free to move them. Again, many thanks! - W.carter (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Good job! Well done. Philg88 ♦talk 12:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! It has really been something so far. Switching from Swedish to English Wiki is like transferring from "Dad's Army" to the "U.S. Marines", and my boss is starting to wonder why I can't get any job done today. But we are not done yet... - W.carter (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Paintings as additional references?
Is this allowed on Wiki? Can I do this? I found some paintings on the web that very well illustrates some things in the article. And I thought I might try incorporating these in the text to give the reader easy access to something depicting the things mentioned in the text. I just did this at a few places so it is easy to remove if it is not appropriate.
- at the "Jolin Residence" I found a painting of the house by Jolin and it looks just like it is described in the text.
- when mentioning Jolins first meeting with Grünerwald I found a lithography by another artist of J & G and again it illustrates the text.
- about the bullfight paintings here are links to two of these paintings so the reader can compare them in the same manner described in the text.
It this too Bold? The text itself does not rest on the pictures, they are just there as some kind of "illustrations". - W.carter (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a question of boldness here, more one of style. Rather than using the pictures as references, I would suggest that you put them in a new "External links" section with a description. If the links also contain a textual description or other info on the painting they are fine as references. Philg88 ♦talk 07:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The links do contain additional information about the paintings so they can go in the reference area. Also, if they are moved to another new section they will more or less loose the direct connection to the part of the article they are illustrating like a multi media thing. I'll leave them for now and think about it and see if somebody else has an opinion on the matter. - W.carter (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
New edit
A lot of new facts and references. I have posted notes about these on my talk page. - W.carter (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Einar Jolin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 17:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |  Done - all of the following have been resolved:
|
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | This section is now Done: 1) All content within the body of the article is cited. The notes regarding Gösta Adrian-Nilsson - and the one that starts out about the Swedish word for man could use citations. (The first note has a part without a citation, but the info is embedded in the text of the note). 2) I'm not used to seeing explanatory notes before the citations in the body of the article (e.g., [c][46] where "c" is the note). Ok, per input at Help talk:Footnotes (long, kind of complicated answer - but they looked at the page and said it was good) and Village Pump (it's in the same order of the sections).
|
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | This section is now Done
|
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | DoneOne question, though, what specifically about Jolin's paintings reflect a naive style (e.g., perception, other)? And/or what does it mean to create Naive Expressionist paintings?
|
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Does not go into unnecessary detail. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Very good, cooperative effort on this article per article history, talk page and archived talk page. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Done Yes, commons and wikipedia file information + discussion at #Works of art by Jolin
|
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Done just one minor tweak in the photo of Jolin and his wife: "Jolins painting" should be Jolin's
|
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Comments
Discussion
|
|---|
|
The article was previously on hold at the nominator's request and is now ready to be reviewed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
--in progress, just saving for safety.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
Thanks for the reminder CaroleHenson. :) I'll let you know when I have tackled the things. Leade is expanded. You asked for a career highlight, I don't know how he saw it, but if I was an artist, selling a pic to Hammarsköld in the UN, would pretty much be it! Onwards and upwards, w.carter-Talk 03:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Alterations
Discussion
|
|---|
|
@CaroleHenson:Just to clear out most of the notes here, I have made alterations to the article according to the specific pointers mentioned in the review. This does not mean that I'm finished with cleaning it up, just that the first stage is done. The big difference between this article and the previous review is clear: I wrote JB myself after being more used to the WP, EJ was translated from SweWiki = not "my own" (won't be doing that again...), and my first major article. Comments to match the points in the review:
As to other notes: Aunt is fixed, lead expanded, styles are being capitalized. I think that's it for now. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:Right! I've corrected, tweaked and re-written as much as I can find, so I think it's time for you to step in and see what you make of it. Glad that the pics got sorted out ok. Btw, have you noticed that there is a "Timeline for Einar Jolin's life" at the bottom of the article. I don't know if that is also on review. I just saw one at another article and thought it was fun to try it out here as well. Have a read-through and just tell me what I've missed. :) Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Better than it may seem
Discussion
|
|---|
Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
|
Works of art by Jolin
Discussion
|
|---|
|
For the GA Review, section 6a deals with copyright status of images: "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" My comments thus far are:
This is not a topic that I'm extremely aware of... I just know that when I've worked on articles I can place one justified fair-use image on an article - but only one and only if there is no copyright free image available. Does anyone have any insight into the images in the two bullets? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I posted a request for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright question: 1915 Swedish painting / 1938 "fair use" Swedish painting.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem:@CaroleHenson:I think it's best if we just keep the 1938 pic and I adjust the text accordingly. It has proved stable during many months. By sheer luck it is actually more appropriate than the ones mentioned in the text. As for the 1915 pic. It may be relevant to point out that it is owned by Malmö Museum, a museum that took part in the Category:Google Art Project works in Malmö Konstmuseum. No picture of it was taken during the drive though. w.carter-Talk 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
[edit conflict]
|
Next...
Discussion
|
|---|
|
Your edits are particularly good and have resulted in a fuller understanding of Jolin and his work. Now, comments are generally minor copy edits or requests for context or clarity.
...stopping for the moment. Again, great job providing insight into who Jolin is. Little touches can make a huge impact, like the way you reworded the sentence about painting mediums to: "He mainly worked in oils and watercolors, using delicate brush strokes and light colors." It's lovely. I can visualize what his finished work might look like and how he worked. That's just one example of the ways in which you've taken what might be considered nitpicky comments and returned brilliant changes. Of the two types of issues, I'm not worried about minor copy edits like wikilinks, punctuation, spelling abbreviations, etc... and going forward I can pick those up (it seems silly because it takes me longer to type about it than fix it and on the whole you're doing a good job there). But if you could read through the rest of the article for any places where the reader might be left hanging, that would be great. For instance, clarifying unexplained phrases that might wiktionary:pique the readers interest, or where the content could be a little clearer. It seems that the remainder of the article does not have areas needing clarification, but a double-check would be good. It seems like there's some minor grammatical and copy edit issues in the reaminder of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:Slowing things down a bit sounds like a good plan for both of us. We've done a ton of work with two GA reviews in a very short time, and with me be still being a bit slow to get all the nuances at the WP, getting some air and a fresh perspective is always good. Being inquisitive is not a bad thing at all :) , it's just that some of the finer details of the questions do get lost when you don't see the face or hear the voice of the one you are having the conversation with. Words are always taken far too literary if one is not familiar with each other's tone. (Does that sentence make sense?)
I'll stick to the previous plan and continue to hunt down things to correct, while you do something fun for a while. And if you come across some pics that needs fixing please send them my way. Working with things that does not involve word is relaxing for me. :) See you in a day or so! Best, w.carter-Talk 16:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
|
_1915.png){kind=link}
English sources and further reading
Discussion
|
|---|
|
Realizing that Jolin had exhibitions in the states, I've checked around for English sources and unlike Bauer, there's quite a number of English sources that should be added... if nothing else, to further reading section. A Google book query for books with preview capability include these books. Input is helpful, but I would think that at least the name number of English books as Swedish books for further reading would be good. There are five Swedish language books in further reading right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:I added three books to the Further reading section. The rest were just of the "a picture on the wall"-kind or encyclopedias. I looked at the rest of the text, and that little rush of adrenaline I got earlier seemed to have cleared my head since I saw so many more of my mistakes all off a sudden. :) Thanks! I think I'll have to let it go for now. Just tell me what new (or old) things you find on your next read-through. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
|
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |