Wikipedia:Peer review/Vädersolstavlan/archive1

Vädersolstavlan

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I spent a long time producing it almost a year ago and still think it does a credible job detailing its subject, but, because of my shortcomings in English, quite obviously still need copy editing by native English-speakers. Also, my use of images in the article is not conventional and should probably at least be discussed.

I'm biased of course, but I think this painting is very interesting, and that the article in spanning over various fields — including the Middle Ages, art history, and meteorology — with a little more effort might develop into a feature article.

Thanks,

Mats Halldin (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 00:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to ce it, but I won't be fast :). Marskell (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Review by Seegoon

I only just got some free time, so here are my thoughts.

• Have you considered providing either an audio sample of someone saying the title, or maybe an IPA inscription? Articles like Fredrik Ljungberg do this.

 Done. Quality could be better though. I'm still new to Ubuntu, so I don't know how to increase the volume. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "over Stockholm April 20, 1535." - I'd make this "on April 20..."

 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it's necessary to wikilink Stockholm twice in the lead. Likewise, maybe it's not necessary to wikilink "history of Sweden" twice either.

 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, it was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." - my objection to this is a personal one. I'd change the structure to: "It was previously covered by layers of brownish varnish, and was hardly discernible until carefully restored and thoroughly documented in 1998–1999." Again, this isn't something lost in translation - English natives do it all the time too!

 Done. / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "During the 20th century" - personally, I'd go for "twentieth", longhand.

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer periods: "Use numerals for centuries (the 17th century), ...". So, I'll leave it as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• "right, and an x-ray analysis" - I'd remove the "an", personally.
  • I may be wrong, but is this a UK vs US style issue? To me, US style always seems to cut out a lot of connecting words! 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, this can be left as it is, imho. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "Just as in the Swedish painting, the panoramic view is not depicting a panorama actually viewed, but rather reality as known." - this is confusing.

 Done This has been rephrased.

• "dressed in 16th century armour." - "sixteenth", maybe? I'd take the word of a history Wikipedian as opposed to mine. I see you use "17th" in the next sentence. Again, I'd ask someone more in the know than me.

See above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• "in 1998 the artist Göran Dahl furnished" - "the" isn't necessary here.

Per above: This can be left as is. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "posters, box of matches, etcetera." - I'm sure there are tidier ways of ending this abstract list that "etcetera", which reviewers might deem lazy.

 Done Well, personally I don't have a problem with this, but it is reworded now.

• The Gamla stan metro station picture causes a half-page gap on my screen. If you moved it to the right, that might solve the issue.

It is located on the right side, did you mean left? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Layout has been changed considerably. Should work now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "The political relation between Sweden and Denmark" - "relationship", I think.

 Done This has been scrapped from the article now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "a series of personal unions 1397–1524 which united northern Europe under a single monarch" - this is a bit unclear and clumsy.

 Done As above. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "1434-1436" - you use a different style of dash here than the one you did in 1397-1524.

 Done The article has been copyedited and this problem should be solved at this time. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless, the entire History section might be criticised by some exclusionists as being circumspective, or irrelevant to the painting itself. Personally, I like seeing extra information like this, so don't worry too much about it.

 Done It has been shortened considerably. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• "The landscape and a great number of notable buildings is veraciously rendered in such great detail" - if you're referring to multiple things, "is" should be "are".

 Done Para rephrased now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why are references 2, 3 and 14 separate? Aren't they all the same thing? The same applies to 9, 10, 11 and 13. Your system is a little confusing, and if you're referencing books, you really should be referencing the page number.

Hm, apparently someone tried to introduce a new kind of reference template for Stockholm diff. Author are different for these refs. Should I just restore them using the regular {{cite book}}? / Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done I restored the refs. / Mats Halldin (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the most I can give right now I'm afraid, but I hope it's all of use. Good luck! Seegoon (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you review. Sorry for having backlogged it.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter Isotalo

I believe much, if not most, of the historical information would be better off in articles on Swedish history and Olaus Petri rather than the article about the painting itself. And I'm a bit concerned about the structure of "History" being a tad confusing since it tries to describe a "prelude" and an "aftermath" of something that wasn't actually a historical event, but a work of art.

The section "Parhelion" seems to be almost entirely misplaced, even I can sympathize with the ambition of explaining the meteorological phenomenon. Just about all of that info is a detailed discussion of the nature and historical understanding of sun dogs, not Vädersolstavlan.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you,

I've had a discussion about the history section on the talk page. and, yes, I agree, it is to long. I'll try to rewrite it.

Seegoon

Some of your points apparently have been solved by 4u1e. I'll have a look at the others.

Peter

I completely agree on the history section, and the parhelion section is maybe a bit long, but it also explains why the painting is surprisingly accurate - even optical phenomenon not entirely understood before the 20th century are depicted correctly.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Marskell

Mats, I'm ce'ing from the bottom, as everyone typically goes from the top. Can you rework "The large circle in the middle of the sky is a parhelic circle – a common halo (while full circles are rare) which is parallel to the horizon and located at the same altitude as the sun, just as depicted." Can't make this out at all. Consider two or three sentences. Marskell (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reworded parts of that section. Thanks for your time.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yomangan

Very interesting article. The look at 16th century and modern Stockholm is very good, but I would like to see more direct comparisons in the images as you've done with Riddarholmen - this really is a case where a picture speaks a thousand words. I agree that the history section needs trimming; the prelude could be condensed to couple of sentences. I also found the "Events" subsection disorganized. I suppose it was meant to be discussing the phenomenon and reasons for the production of the painting, but it skipped back and forth without really concentrating on any particular event. You could move the section on the sun dogs up here, so we don't have to wait until the end of the article for an explanation. I think the article also needs more on the lost painting and the link between the lost and existing versions. The extant painting is referred to throughout as being a copy of the original and at one point as an accurate copy, but there is nothing to tell us how this is known. The original is lost, and there is no documentation mentioned that establishes that the extant painting was copied directly from the original (other than perhaps the mention of "renewal", but this seems tenuous at best), or whether it was an accurate copy. Urban Målare is mentioned in the lead but not in the main text - why is the original attributed to him? The section on the parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - subsections for tiny paragraphs. Yomangani^talk 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. more direct comparisons in the images - Good idea, I'll try that.

 Done I've reworked the section and added more direct comparisons. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. the "Events" subsection disorganized - Yes, I will shorten the entire history section, so hopefully I will manage to bring some order to it.

 Done This section has been shortened and reworked. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. more on the lost painting - but virtually nothing is known about the original painting (which is attributed to Urban Målare simply because he is one of the few painters known by name from that era). There is a sentence in the Painting section saying: "A dendrochronological investigation showed [...] the painting in question must therefore be a copy and not the restored original." The entire Medieval Stockholm section is an attempt to show the is indeed reason to believe the copy must have been made directly from the original. This should be made more clear in the article apparently. In the intro maybe?

 Done I've added a "and virtually nothing is known about it." in the intro to clear this out. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. parhelion seems unnecessarily choppy - Yes, good point. move the section on the sun dogs up - it actually was one of the first sections while I was working on the article, so it is probably a good idea.

 Done I've removed the subheadings in the parhelion section. I've been considering reordering the sections, but it just don't make sense to me. After all this is an article about the painting. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• From the instructions: "Please do not include any images, such as done/not done templates with tick/cross graphics" Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)