Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish

Literal translations from Swedish

Several of the previous translations (before I corrected them) used very dubious translations (E.g. "sämja", "unite"/"unity", was translated as "tame", which is just wrong) and had no supporting references. As such, I corrected them without supporting references (e.g. for SAOL[[[1]]] and Wiktionary [[[2]]]). 109.228.176.49 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we have no option here but to remove the uncited materials; adding further uncited claims is unjustifiable and only makes matters worse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Translation of The Lord of the Rings into Swedish/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm used to working through any issues with reviewers and will respond to comments promptly. By the way, the current online text of Strömbom 2009 has the Swedish diacritic characters (ö, etc) messed up; I've made a cleaned-up version which you can have if you email me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
  • Noted.

• Spotchecks:
  • "In his 1967 "Guide to the Names in The Lord of the Rings", produced in response to Ohlmarks's version" is sourced to Hammond and Scull p. 760 & 774. I note that my edition of Hammond and Scull has this information on pp. 750-751 (Yes, I'm geeky enough to own a copy of this... but I'm obviously not enough of a Tolkien-geek to write Wikipedia articles about his works! I'm in awe...)
    • I've cited the 2005 edition, which I have here.

• Tolkein's response:
  • I like the chart here - but I'm not sure what the "literal translation" is for - is it the literal translation of the Swedish word that Ohlmarks used? Or is it a translation of the word Tolkien used?
    • Of Ohlmarks's Swedish. Amended the table header.

• Later hostility:
  • "noting among other things Ohlmarks's confusion of Eowyn and Merry in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields" this sounds like a rather major issue that should be discussed outside of the reception? Were there other issues of this sort in the translation?
    • Just one small local mixup among many issues. This sort of thing may help to explain the reactions of Tolkien, critics, and the Swedish reading public.
  • "Also in 2004, Anders Stenström, known as Beregond, stated " I'm not sure what the "known as Beregond" means or adds here?
    • Ah, it's his usual handle in Tolkien linguistic circles, and he often writes and gives talks under that name, so it is likely to be helpful to readers.

• Names:
  • Could we perhaps have an English translation of the Swedish here - for those of us not conversant in Swedish? This would also apply to the Prose and Verse sections?
    • Added.

• Total side note and not something needing changed - but did Ohlmarks usually write of himself in the third person like in Note A?
  • Probably not the maddest thing he ever did...

I note that I read the first review and feel that the nominator addressed most of the issues raised. I do think that not much weight should be assigned to a bachelor's thesis although I'll not fail the article for including it.

Well I've tried both without and with it now! It is certainly a well-researched and thoughtful thesis.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Ealdgyth: Many thanks. All done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good. Passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)