Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harriet Bosse


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009.

Harriet Bosse

 * Nominator: Bishonen | talk


 * Tech. Review
 * Dabs (using the toolbox dabs checker tool)


 * ..are to speed.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * External link (toolbox link checker tool)
 * ..is up to speed
 * Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)


 * Lagercrantz, 295.
 * Comment by Bosse in Letters, 16. -- ₮ RU  C Ө   21:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that, sorry. The notes in the article are consistent. Their numbers are consecutive. And you want me to use a different, non-consecutive, note system for four out of the 58 notes, merely because two pairs of page references come on the same pages? I use the normal note system in my academic field. If I understand you, you want me to switch to the system that medical studies use. That can hardly be obligatory for FAs. Or am I misunderstanding?
 * I've never seen that before, but I'll take it into note. Ref formatting is up to speed (I'm guessing?).-- ₮ RU  C Ө   00:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how to use the dabs checker tool (que?), and what's wrong with the dabs? Bishonen | talk 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
 * I think you are misunderstanding, The content that I placed above is what the ref appears like in the ref section. These refs appear multiple times in the ref section, when this could be avoided by using a ref name instead. The dabs (as seen using the disambiguation tool in the toolbox to your right) need to be fixed, as in they need to be disambiguated to the correct page.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "I take your point, though "multiple times" = twice, right? I know that two of them appearing twice could be avoided by using a ref name. On the other hand, having the footnote numbers in the text jumping about all over the shop, which is encouraged in some academic fields but not even allowed in others (and is IMO horrible, but that's a matter of taste), can be avoided by using the system. Please see the Featured article criteria, 2 c: what's required of citations is that they be consistent. Mine are. Bishonen
 * Regarding dabs, Truco is referring to this. These links in the article need to be pointed to the correct article rather than the disambiguation pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have known Iconoclast was bound to be an album! Bishonen


 * Support, I liked this quite a bit. I made some minor fixes and edits as I read, but overall it looks good. A couple items I wasn't clear on:
 * "Like his previous two marriages, the relationship was broken up by Strindberg's jealousy, which some critics have considered paranoid and psychotic." Hm.. critics of the relationship or critics of his work? :) Later you say "paranoid" and "delusional"; I'm no expert but I think psychosis and delusion are not interchangeable.
 * All of them and then some have been ascribed to Strindberg. But I should use interchangeable terms in the lede and the article proper, good point. Bishonen
 * "In spite of the disadvantage of speaking Swedish with a Norwegian accent ..." A point of interest. How is this a disadvantage? Was it looked down upon in Swedish society in general, or just in acting careers? The reason I ask is that I'm researching Italian opera from around the same period and the Italians didn't seem to care where singers and actors came from.
 * I hope one day to be known as an angry young socialist muckraker. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Literary critics. Oh, it was a question of actors only. A Norwegian accent on stage wouldn't be a disadvantage today, but back then accents were thought to break the all-important illusion and be distracting. No, the Italians didn't care... Italian opera was a horse of a very different colour compared to the legit drama, which at that time aspired to realism. I'm afraid comparing features like accents won't be a lot of use to you; the attitude was quite different.
 * And I would like one day to be an actress who is exhorted not to look like a boiled shrimp.(Footnote 4.) Bishonen | talk 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I've been watching this page from its infancy in Bish's userspace. I made a few punctuation changes a few days ago, but I can honestly not see anything else that needs to be fixed.  Great page! Tex (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support A well written and informative page that meets all the criteria for promotion to a FA Giano (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: licenses were corrected to use Swedish public domain. Note that there is a dispute on Swedish public domain at Commons (ref: commons:Template talk:PD-Sweden-photo), but if that proves to be a serious problem, the images can be uploaded to Wikipedia since they were published before 1923; an exception would be File:Bosse and daughter aged six months.png since it might be a personal photo rather than a publicity shot (hence, not published).  That does not come into play at this time anyway.  The photo of the art in the metro is likely permanent, hence qualifying for freedom of panorama per Swedish law.  Jappalang (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I never thought of the special status of the baby photo, but of course you're right: that's hardly likely to have been published as early as the others. Are you saying it was created sufficiently long ago in any case? The child's age shows the photo is from 1902. Also, it was definitely published by 1959, which is the year of publication of the book I scanned it from. Yes, the Strindberg image in the subway is permanent, it's not a poster or something. And I'm so glad I didn't see the Commons dispute about Swedish photo copyright before, what a nightmare... it would have put me off the whole thing. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The Swedish PD law for photos is based on death of creator and creation date. US copyright is mainly based on publication date.  As creation and publication are not the same, the baby photo in this case is possibly disputable as PD-1923, which requests for publication before 1923.  As for the Commons dispute, just keep our fingers crossed, and if worse come to worse, we can always upload those photos (well, except for the baby) to Wikipedia as said.  Jappalang (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. This is good stuff: the writing, the images, the topic. I particularly like the way the role of a highly creative woman comes out in relation to such a man. Tony   (talk)  13:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for the copyedit, Tony. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC).
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.