Talk:Visor från vinden/GA1

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

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello,. I'm, and I'll be your reviewer.

Before I get to the content of the article itself, I'd quickly like to go through sourcing I found problematic.


 * 1) Quite a lot of the sources in the article are dead, so you'd need to find archives for them. As is, they are currently unverifiable.
 * checking ...


 * 1 DN, national newspaper, ok
 * 2 Karlsson's own site, archived, ok
 * 3 Itunes, info only, ok
 * 4 dead link, removed.
 * 5 Sonoloco, see below
 * 6 Svensk Media Databas, ok
 * 7 Fleurs du mal / Baudelaire (public domain text), ok
 * 8 Kritiker.se, ok
 * 9 Aftonbladet, Swedish newspaper, now offline but still a valid reliable source.
 * 10 Dagens Industri, swedish business newspaper, ok
 * 11 Expressen, national newspaper, ok
 * 12 Norran, Swedish newspaper, archived, ok
 * 13 Sundsvalls Tidning, Swedish newspaper, now offline but still a valid reliable source.
 * 14 Svenska Dagbladet, national newspaper, ok
 * 15 Östgöta Correspondenten, Swedish newspaper, now offline but still a valid reliable source.
 * 16 Manifestgalan, ok
 * 17 Svenska Dagbladet, national newspaper, ok
 * 18 Swedish charts, works ok


 * Please note that sources do not have to be online to be considered reliable and verifiable - a source could be a physical document in the Library of Congress, for instance. The Swedish newspapers cited are valid sources in this regard, whether they are archived or not (not sure we can archive copyrighted content, maybe it'd be ok). I've removed ref 4; all the rest except for Sonoloco seem to be fine, as I hope you'll agree.
 * The main thing I'm concerned about with these dead links is that it's difficult to verify whether they were even put to press and released physically in the first place. If they are online-only, and the links are dead, then there's no way to verify whether the information presented is actually written there. It could be possible to find physical releases via the National Library of Sweden if there aren't any archives elsewhere. Archiving links is legally grey, but it hasn't been an issue on Wikipedia so far. If the copyright holder wants it gone, they can contact the archiving service. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, well, I'll look at them and see what I can archive. I notice that this is not however a GA requirement, but it's obviously a helpful practice. There are only 3 of "these dead links", all to newspaper reviews that were originally printed on paper, and since they broadly concur with the other reviews in other newspapers, there needn't be much concern about them. I might point out that it is fine for articles to cite obscure books and journals which can only be found in a few libraries, there is no requirement for sources to be online.


 * 1) Sonoloco does not seem to be a reliable source, as it is seemingly self-published. Quite a lot of the article is cited to this, but I'd rather take it out then leave in information cited to poor sources.
 * OK, I've removed it. Since it was used just for track information, I've replaced it with citations directly to the CD/album cover: that's of course primary, but that's permissible for simple facts about the work. That leaves us with all the article text now cited to reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to the rest of the article if these issues are resolved. As it stands, this would be a fail based on the second GA criterion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on. I've addressed these preliminary comments above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll get to verifying the actual content of the article now. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I've added a bunch of archive URLs and dates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Background

 * "named after a 1917 book of poems by the Swedish proletarian school author Dan Andersson" is not written in the source. This should be easy enough to verify with a source from the respective article.
 * Cited.
 * Also, maybe something more specific than just "named after", considering all the lyrics on the album are derived from the poem collection.
 * Fixed, "from" seems to cover it.
 * Everything else checks out, but "The songs Karlsson chose to include she describes as "old favorites" that "popped up in the tour bus" is somewhat strange wording. Perhaps replace "old favorites" with something more descriptive like: "Many of the songs Karlsson chose to include on the album are a selection of [recent/contemporary/modern?] Swedish music that the band played on the tourbus." The reason I'm so hesitant on the info in the brackets is because the source describes it as "the latest 30-40 years of Swedish music", but I'll allow you to come up with something that better suits the description given by the source if mine are inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSeeress (talk • contribs) 14:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reworded, hope this works better for you.

Production

 * Torben Laursen should be described as engineer or technician (with a link to audio engineer), as "techniques" doesn't really mean much.
 * Done.
 * "Moesta e Errabunda" should be spelled "Moesta et Errabunda" (which is also spelled incorrectly in the first image on the right in the "tracks" section).
 * Fixed.
 * ""Näckaspel" and "Jag längtar" were recorded by Esbjörn Hazelius in Niglahol Studios and "Valsen till mig" in Studio Atlantis by Olle Linder". Add a comma after "Niglahol Studios".
 * Done.
 * Citations aren't needed after every sentence, so just remove the ones that aren't at the end of the paragraph. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.

Tracks

 * I feel like there's a lot of information here that wouldn't necessarily interest a reader beyond potentially who wrote the original text, what the songs are about, or what the artists had in mind while writing them. All the information about who did what could be put into the "musicians" section instead (see for example: Donda for inspiration).
 * Removed the who-did-what.


 * I'd also like to see a more cohesive structure instead of just listing off the tracks one by one, as that can be very one-note. For example, one paragraph to something like: "The tracks on Visor från vinden are adapted from the works of several poets and musicians, including [...]. Two of the songs are also from traditional Scandinavian [/Norwegian and Swedish] music". The next paragraph could be about their decisions to include certain tracks, or what their thoughts were on them, etc.
 * I've what I can into the table, and have added a brief introductory paragraph.


 * Detailed information about the origins of the songs (e.g. author or tradition) and additional notes could be given in a table instead, as that is easier to digest than lines of prose.
 * Good idea, it was over-detailed and dull to read. It's now all in a table, with a brief overview in text.


 * This section also has too many images, making them overflow into other sections. I'd suggest removing some of them.
 * Organised into a (small) gallery. That does seem to work well here.

Track listing
This section needs sourcing if you are to rework the previous section. You could also use Template:Track listing here, though that is an entirely stylistic choice. I'll leave that up to you.

Musicians
Nothing much to note here. See "tracks" comments for suggestions. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah. Removed. If anyone disagrees, they can bring it back with their reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Reception

 * Maybe change opening line to "... received mixed to positive reception, with an average score of 3.4/5 on review aggregator Kriker.se." to provide context for what Kriker.se even is.
 * Done.


 * Section relies too heavily on long quotations. Perhaps paraphrase their critiques.
 * Done.
 * I feel like some of them are still fairly long, in particular the ones in the third and fourth paragraphs. ArcticSeeress (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've paraphrased some more, but I would note that the whole point of a Reception section is to give voice to the different reviewers; it is well within the limits of fair-use critical analysis to quote a line or two from each of half-a-dozen reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Awards and distinctions

 * The title is better as just "Awards".
 * Fixed. We often use the full title as people get distinctions of many kinds.
 * Link Danish Music Awards.
 * Done.
 * The album did not win a Grammy (i.e. a Grammy Award), but an award from the Danish Music Awards that previosly called itself Dansk Grammy. This is written in the second paragraph, so just move it up to the first one (it doesn't really need its own line either).
 * Done. However she did win a Swedish Grammis, I've cited it.
 * Maybe an interlanguage link for Manifestgalan?
 * Of course. Done.

Charts

 * The reference doesn't lead to the album anymore. This is the fixed one.
 * Updated.
 * "which was at that time Karlsson's best list placement". It is still the best placement she has had, shared by her 2014 album Regnet faller utan oss. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.

Lead

 * Rewrite the last paragraph on awards, as it did not win any Grammis (or Grammys), but one award from Manifestgalan, and one from the Danish Music Awards.
 * Done.
 * "The album contains "Le Vin Des Amants" translated from the French of Baudelaire and Lars Forsell's free rendering of Boris Vian's "Le Déserteur"." - I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean?
 * Seems plain enough, but I've rewritten it for you.
 * Add critical reception.
 * Done.

I'll come back to the lead once you're done with the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcticSeeress (talk • contribs) 19:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Finishing remarks
I made some quick edits to wording and fixed two references with broken parameters. I know I said I'd get to the lead, but I'll just write that here instead. There are a few things I'd like to comment on:


 * Lead:
 * Is the album really a collection of "classical" songs? I'd say most of them aren't classical.
 * Fixed.
 * "reviewers noting the fine performances" - what does "fine" mean here? It can have a lot of definitions (e.g. describing something of either subjective or objective quality), so perhaps a more specific words to describe the reception.
 * Fixed.


 * Reception:
 * I still feel like there's a lot of long quotes, especially the third and fourth paragraphs (I've also commented this further up, but I feel like it's worth point out here as well)
 * Paraphrased a bit more, but really, if we're explaining a work's reception by reviewers, we're certainly allowed to give them voice for a line or two each.
 * One review is alone on a single line, which gives it a lot of emphasis than it probably needs.
 * Closed up.

These are my last niggles with the article. Guess we'll clear the finish line in about 10 hours after my daily conk-out session. ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the exceptionally perceptive review which has sharpened up the article markedly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article follows all of the GA criteria, so it looks good to go. Nice work! I know tables can be a real pain to work with, but it came out great! ArcticSeeress (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)