Talk:Ljuva karneval!/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs) 02:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi ! As we've talked previously, I'll start a review for this article today. Although I'm not at all knowledgable on the Swedish language, I'll try my best to check the sources, not only to verify the information in the article, but also to learn about the subject and possibly help improve the page. I should begin writing the review proper in the next few days. Isabelle 🔔 02:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to begin the review! As I've done in my previous reviews, I'll be leaving notes about each specific section on possible improvements that can be made to them. You can either leave your answers within my list, or as a separate one.
 * I'll add them within the list.

Lede

 * According to the manual of style, the translation should be without quotation mark (also probably no in italic, since there is no well-known translation);
 * Done.
 * Still on the title, I think it would be nice to include the subtitle in the lede, alongside its translation. Also, here I'm really in doubt whether the full title should be Ljuva karneval! Om Carl Michael Bellmans diktning or Ljuva karneval!: om Carl Michael Bellmans diktning. Most of the Swedish sources appear to use the latter, while some of the English use the former. If you have access to the original book, it should have the intended full title in the copyright section;
 * There is no colon on the title page - the Swedes seem to use it to indicate a line break in the title, but having two punctuation marks together "!:" just looks odd in English.
 * The sentences could be merged into one:
 * Done.
 * The sentence is a bit too similar to the one quoted later in the article. I'd recommend editing it.
 * Rewritten.
 * Correct me if I misunderstood, but the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to use wikivoice to say the Epistles' characters do not, in fact, represent Bellman. From reading the rest of the article, this appear to be a specific interpretation by Lönnroth. I think it should be clarified that this is the author's interpretation, for example:
 * Fixed.
 * The reception paragraph could possibly be expanded to highlight the importance of this work to the studies of Bellman.
 * Added.
 * The only information the lede is missing is the illustrations. Would it be possible to add a sentence about those?
 * Done.

Context

 * The first paragraph feels a bit heavy with information, while at the same time only describing Bellman's Epistles and not Songs. I think you should attempt to have a more concise description of Fredman's Epistles here, and add something about Fredman's Songs as well, since they are connected. I'd recommend beginning with the sentence about Jean Fredman, and then proceeding by talking about the works of Bellman.
 * I've split it up, added a bit on the Songs, and rearranged it to be easier to approach.
 * The second paragraph could possibly be more specific about some things. Instead of, would it be possible to specify the year, possibly through a publication of some essay or thesis? Also, does source 3 confirm that age? From reading it, I can only assume it shows the dates the professor published his works, but I can't tell what those works are about.
 * Done. Yes, Ref 3 gives the key dates.
 * Still on this paragraph, I think you could also add that Lönnroth was a professor of Literature in these Universities.
 * Added.

Book

 * Although I understand why there is only one inline citation for this section, I'd suggest, if possible, to add inline citations marking from which pages/chapters the information came from. This is not required.
 * Noted.
 * The second and third paragraph should be merged, since they continue the same concept. If you don't want one big paragraph, you can add a break here:.
 * Done.
 * I think this sentence could be rewritten as such:
 * Done.
 * The source number 6 (first review) has an information about the illustrations present in the book that could be added here:
 * Added.
 * . I assume this information is presented by the author, so I think an inline citation would be better.
 * Added.

Reception

 * . Here, I'd suggest changing "his" to "the bard's", to clarify who is the subject of the sentence.
 * Yes, done.
 * Source 7 appears to have a few less than positive things to say about the book. I think they should be added to the section for some balance.
 * OK, added a bit of crit from Cullhed.
 * to
 * Done. It's a word I avoid like the plague in Wikipedia articles...


 * Feel free to respond to the pointed issues and recommendations at your own leisure. Isabelle 🔔 17:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All done to date, thanks for the careful reading and suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going through all of my notes, Chiswick Chap. I really like the state of the article right now, as it's easier to read it all, not tiring, and very informative on the subject. I've read it all again, and I'd like to make a few last comments, to do with the images (as a note, I use the Vector skin to see how the article looks, since it's the default skin). I love their spacing right now, but I'm not sure the first image is quite appropriate, in that it's only very tangentially related to the subject, while the other two are very much related. Maybe it would be possible to replace it with a picture by one of the artists featured in the book? It's alright if not.
 * Rewritten the image caption: clearly Lönnroth and his publishers thought it relevant.
 * Aside from that, you are only missing adding a period to the caption of the first and third pictures, per MOS:CAPFRAG.
 * Done.
 * Also, a small mistake here:, where it's missing a word. Isabelle 🔔 00:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies, Chiswick Chap, as well as the clarification for one of the pictures. As I've mentioned before, I'm really happy with the current state of the article. It's easy to read but still goes well into the subject, including giving context on the most important aspects so the reader doesn't need to leave the article to understand it (although they are recommended, and are properly directed by appropriate wikilinks). Not only that, it's accompanied by great illustrations that are all connected to the book or its subject, the bard. As an article about a book, it covers some of the more important topics, such as its content, reception by literary critics, and its importance to its area of study. Everything is well referenced with inline citations, although I have to assume good faith on most of the sources, which are not only in Swedish, but some are not available to read. I'm more than glad to mark this as a good article, and congratulate Chiswick on his work. Isabelle 🔔 15:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)