Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 02:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Material is cited, generally with foreign language sources. Good faith assumption that sources cover the cited content. Citations to reliable sources, where required.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Updated PD tags for several images from {{PD-Art}}, which creates an error message, to the correct {{PD-Sweden-photo}}
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions of works by Bauer were updated
	7. Overall assessment.	The expansion and improvement of the article has been a good collaborative effort, let by W.carter and with input, direction and copyediting by Krenakarore, Onel5969, Alrich44, Siawase, Philg88, EditorInTheRye, Demiurge1000 and Mr Stephen. Great job!

Questions related to review

Discussion

I have a couple of questions to run by you as I'm working on the article: Do you mind if I go ahead and made minor edits to the article, like this change? I edited the following: "He founded a successful charcuterie business at the Östra Torget in Jönköping,[2] where the family lived in the apartment above the shop until building a house in Sjövik in 1881, one year before John Bauer was born.[3] John lived at the Villa Sjövik by the shore of Lake Rocksjön with his two brothers, one older and one younger; his only sister died at a young age.[2]". My hope is that it is clearer and accurate. The citation style is a bit different than what I've seen: 1) there seems to be a mixture of short and long citations, and there is a bibliography. For instance, should "Romdahl, Axel L. "John Bauer". In Axelsson, Roger. Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (in Swedish) 2 (1920 ed.). Stockholm: National Archives of Sweden. p. 783. Retrieved 12 May 2014." be added to the bibliography (without the page number) with a short citation with the author and page number? Related to #1, I am going to sort the bibliography and further reading sections alphabetically by last name - and split notes into their own section. Done I finished making some edits to the "Early life and education" section. The edits were either to be a bit more concise or to have more of an encyclopedic tone. The article is generally well-written, it just needs a bit of polishing. I will stop for the time being to let you absorb the changes and the questions about long/short citations and await your response. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Hello CaroleHenson, thank you for staring this review so soon after the GAN. :) I don't mind at all. English is not my native language so there are many aspects and nuances that I'm still unfamiliar with. Tweak the language as much as you like as long as the facts remain correct. Looks good. This has always been a tricky part. Lots of facts to fit into one sentence. Again, I'm grateful for all corrections of my language for the sake of the article. :) As to citation style; I did not know that I had a citation style at all! I'm still something of a newbie here and not too familiar with all WP style-things yet. I have tried to give as much information about each source as possible, using as many parameters as needed to do so. It is pretty straight forward when the source is a modern book, but some sources are old books or journals, lacking many of the normal parameters. I used the harv refs whenever I could since they are easy to deal with, and normal citations for everything else. Since Sweden is a highly digitized country, there are also a number of sources that are both books and websites (just like with Google books), and I just did not know whether to put these in cite web or cite book. I accessed them online. The one you mentioned is even worse. It's an online encyclopedia/database that used to be in just ordinary volumes, but these have been digitized and the original books are almost impossible to find anywhere. Each entry have different authors, and since it is a work in progress (has been since 1917) many entries have different dates. There is an explanation in English about it here. I don't think it can be put in the bibliography section since it is only accessible online, but it is one of the most accurate and best sources for biographies in Sweden today. I'm open to suggestions about how the style of the citations can be improved. :) Thanks! I had not thought about this. I just added the books to the biography section as I used them in the text. This looks much neater. As for the note, I forgot about it since it was only one note and I did not think it warranted a whole section of it's own. Ok. The review has started pretty much as I thought it would. The facts are solid (I would not dare to use anything else!), my language is a bit crappy, I'm not used to writing in an encyclopedic manner and I'm still learning about the WP style. Again, thanks! Looking forward to the next bunch of questions. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I will read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Visual arts and correct the captions for the pictures. It will take a day or two since I am very busy (at work) this week. I really did not expect the review to start so soon. :) w.carter-Talk 11:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) 1 and 2. - Ok, I'll move forward editing the rest of the sections. 3. Citations / notes Re: use of long citations within references for web pages - when I use short citations, instead of Bibliograpy I use Sources and put the web pages there, too. But that's definitely a personal preference. Regarding my question, though, I misunderstood that it was not a book - sorry about that - I'm good with your response. Regarding the notes, I see your point about it only being one note, but if more are needed then the section is good to go. It's not wrong to combine citations and notes, but it's easier to distinguish what are notes and what are true citations with this method (i.e., use of a separate notes section is a personal preference) See Help:Shortened footnotes#Explanatory notes. If you prefer to keep the note with the citations, that's fine. 4. - thanks Given that English is not your native language, you've done a great job on the article - I'll just review and edit for tweaks.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) You are very kind, but the article would not be in such good shape if it were not for the pruning and excellent copy editing done by Onel5969. Some comments: I saw your comment on the pictures, that they should be on the right side and the same size. It's fine by me. In my "defense" I can only say that when I was tweaking the style I was looking at other GA and FA articles such as Rembrandt and El Greco where pics are placed left and right and in different sizes. So I assumed that this was the way to do it. Lets keep the "Notes". You are perfectly right in that it makes things easier for the next editor. After all, I did not create this article, I am simply expanding it and passing it on to future editors. About the refs and biography section. At the time of writing I was a bit confused about it all and asked at the Teahouse. The answer was: Put it all in references. But I have seen articles where short refs are in the Citations section and the rest in References/Sources and they look kind of tidy. I did want the Biography section separate from the References though. This list of major books borders on the Furter reading and having them separate makes it easier for the readers to find them. I did think about having even more sections (Notes, Citations, References and Bibliography) but then I saw the messy Notes section at Rembrandt and used a middle way instead. I can always tidy it up (now or later) if you think there is need for it. A question has been raised re the pictures (see below) and I would like your input on this. For now I will just fix the captions of the existing pics. There is one place where your edit of the text has distorted the fact, but it is probably just because my text was fuzzy to begin with. In the Lappland section a sentence is now written: "To record this change, Carl Adam Victor Lundholm decided to publish..." This is incorrect, the book was not made to record the change. In plain language: Lappland and the north of Sweden became a popular fad in the rest of Sweden when the money from all the new industries in the north stared to flow. Everything "Lappland" was in fashion and the book was simply a way to capitalize on this. It was what today would be called a "coffee table book". It included nothing about the change, just lots of romanticized stuff about Lappland. If you can think of a way rephrasing that sentence, it would be great. A bit later in the same section it now may sound as if Bauer was reluctant to the entire job, which he was not, he was just miffed at being asked to "audition", he thought he had already proven he could do it. (Or maybe this is exactly what the text says now, just me misunderstanding it!) For now, w.carter-Talk 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Image justification - I have been using going by: "Image layout: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location states: 'Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph.'" that I found in a FA review. But the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Location states: "In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement." I am so with you in using good articles as examples for article approaches. There are obviously varying opinions about the approach for justifying images, but I still find that it is good to right justify images in general - but particularly the first image in the section. (e.g., Ethel Sands) Notes - sounds good. References / Bibliography sections - no need to change, we're good. Images - your approach makes sense. I'll look forward to any further input in that section. Lappland - I like the phrase "to capitalize on this change" for the book... I get your point about the reluctance and will try to come up with a change. I like the point about having to "audition". I'll go back and review the original verbiage + your and my comments and make an edit for you to look at. Great input!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:Thanks, you are too kind. Yes "to capitalize on this change" sounds good. Let's tell it like it really was. I leave the article in your very capable hands for the night. Namaste, w.carter-Talk 20:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Image selection

Discussion

Related to the GA review I guess, I question if it really is an improvement to this article to exclude much of his most recognized works. From reading the earlier discussions, I think the rationale was that these images are included in the Among Gnomes and Trolls article instead, but shouldn't the quality of each article be determined separately? I think it would be an improvement to this article to include his most iconic works in the gallery here (maybe in conjuncture with the prose too) instead of using that space for relatively unknown, niche works. See for example here[1] some of his most iconic works that were used on Swedish stamps, only one of which is included in this article. Siawase (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Hello Siawase. When I saw your post, my first reaction was "Oh, no! Not this again!" which is very unfair to you since you do not know the whole story. The reason for my cautious selection of pictures is that just prior to my expansion of the article, it was involved in a very nasty edit war regarding what pictures, how large and how many there should be in this article. The war raged on this talk page (see archives) and on several user talk pages among other users. I came in to this as a neutral bystander and my expansion of the article, moderation with pictures in the article and the transferal of several pictures to Among Gnomes and Trolls was a kind of "peace treaty" that everyone could agree on. I can certainly see your point and I can also make some suggestions for substitutions and alterations, but I dare hardly voice them for fear of igniting the whole thing again. Let's first hear what the reviewer CaroleHenson has to say about this. Who would have thought that an art biography could be just as "dangerous" to edit as a Middle East article? Best, w.carter-Talk 18:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Oops, sorry, I looked at some of the debate in the archive, but I didn't realize it got that bad. Mostly, I just saw the vastly improved article (great work by the way!) and I was surprised to see so few of his images I'm familiar with (knowing him from Swedish mainstream coverage.) I hope we can find a solution without stirring up old conflicts. Siawase (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC) I can absolutely see Siawase's point, but I agree with W.carter that the "For illustrations from the famous children's anthology, see Among Gnomes and Trolls" in the Works section was a very appropriate solution. If the two of you agree to add one image from that body of work to the article section or in the works section, that's fine with me. If this stirs up a previously resolved hornet's nest, though, it starts to cause the "stability" of the article (item #5 of the GA criteria) to come into question.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Follow-up thought: But, if there is descent, it is better to know about it now and resolve it than to finish the Good article process, potentially getting the GA, and then having issues flare up after that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the input both of you! There are so many pictures to choose from, and I will post a suggestion for alterations here as soon as possible, and if all agree on the change, then I'll do it. I'll just move carefully to not rock the boat. (Let me get a cup of tea first.^^) Most of the quarrel was about the Tuvstarr being nominated for featured picture, but at that time this article was not more than a start/stub and a better article was needed to support the pic. One editor just simply drowned the article in pictures "to make it more notable" and others opposed him. I thought it was better to expand the text. My first part of the expansion helped Tuvstarr gain featured status. If the article becomes a GA I very much doubt the conflict will flare up again as it will support the featured picture very well. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 19:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Ah, that is a very helpful summary of the background and your summary and approach sounds good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC) Thank you for explaining what happened W.carter. Sounds good to me too. Siawase (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:@Siawase:So, here is my suggestion: I move the aquarelle of Ester to the gallery and in its place in the text I put this picture of his very iconic trolls. This pic is not used in the Among Gnomes and Trolls so there will be no repetition or taking a pic from that article. And the article will have one more pic that is "very Bauer". And it is from Among G... Ok? w.carter-Talk 19:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Sounds great to me. That's one of his more recognizable work, and an image with trolls seems ideal. Siawase (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Agreed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:@Siawase:Ok, I'll make the switch and fix up the pic captions tomorrow so that CaroleHenson can do her editing without risking editing conflicts with me. Also it's getting late here and want to be more awake when I do serious editing. (I'll just make one more comment further up the page in a moment.) It's a pleasure working with you two! Best, w.carter-Talk 20:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Article questions

Discussion

Here's my working list of some questions that have come up during editing: What does "When he proposed to Ellqvist, Bauer did so without the approval of his parents" mean? Was Ellqvist unsuitable for some reason? Did their reluctance affect the couple's relationship - or Bauer's reliance on his parents for financial support? What does "experimented with new ways of painting" mean? I assume that Domenico Ghirlandaio is the Ghirlandaio (because of their close relationship to Botticelli + he was the most likely to be referred to only by surname) that may have been the inspiration for Svanhamnen OR "Swan maiden", but haven't been able to verify that. Is it Domenico, or another Ghirlandaio? Regarding the death of the Bauer family - the section says "Investigations indicated" - were there multiple investigations (i.e., multiple organizations / multiple investigatory efforts)? --CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC @CaroleHenson:I'll just answer these questions first and then move on down the page. His parents objected for the most common reason parents object to something: They thought he should get a proper , steady job before getting married so that he would be able to support his wife and family. They had no objection to Ellqvist at all and they would always support Bauer financially, they just wanted him to grow up and be responsible. All of this did not affect the couple's relationship at all. They were two spoiled kids with rich parents, something they knew and commented on in their letters to each other. I'll have to think about how to phrase this in the text, unless you have some suggestion. I have altered the "experimented with new ways of painting" in the text. Just hope the right word really is "modernistic" (cubism, impressionism, expressionism).:) This part of his artistry is usually just glanced over in most biographies since those paintings were few, with no major works and of no interest to the average JB fan. You have to be a really hard core aficionado to know about them. You can see some of the works here: expressionism or King Death and the War. There are lots of other little tidbits like this about Bauer. I thought I could save them for the FA!:) Just need to pass this hurdle first. Yes, Domenico Ghirlandaio is correct. Ooops! Yes, there were a number of different hearings, investigations, speculations, accusations, etc. over many year. Remember, this was a century ago in a rural part of the world where things moved slowly and not at all in the manner we are used to. There was no "CSI/FBI"-like team to control the "scene of the crime" and make one conclusive investigation. As far as investigations goes, this was the Wild West. Moving on down the page. w.carter-Talk 15:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Perhaps, "When he proposed to Ellqvist, Bauer did so without the approval of his parents, who thought that he should be more established in a career and self-supporting before marriage." Rather than modernistic, the right term is Modernism or Modernist. I think saying that he was experimenting with modernism, with perhaps an example of one or two works is sufficient. 3 and 4 - great, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson: 1, excellent, 2, also good, is also shortens the sentence. I know the movement is Modernism, it was just in that sentence that I thought along the lines of "impressionistic" or "cubistic". Should the work just be mentioned (I suggest we use the Fanstyg. Gouache. from the museum website) or should I go and nick a pic? w.carter-Talk 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: I, personally, would stick with "experimenting with modernism", but I'll leave that to you. I guess I just have a hard time figuring out how to use the work modernistic in this case. Whatever you think about adding / not adding an image is good with me.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments / next steps

Discussion

I regrouped sections to more standard career, exhibitions, collections, works, legacy, and popular culture sections. If this looks good to you, then I am comfortable closing out the issue in the GA review checklist regarding sections. Within the Career section I broke out the first block of info into three subsections, but you may not agree with the grouping of info - mind taking a look? There was only one award, so I rolled it into the "exhibitions" section. Another option is to add it within the appropriate subsection of his "Career" section Please look at the move I made of the quotes about subjects from the section about Bauer as a person to Career / subjects section. It seems like it goes better here, but if you like it in the section about Bauer, the person perhaps you could add something that makes a transition from the exiting info about his personal persona / self-doubts to this info. I put correspondence info in a note, it's not really a "Legacy" type of issue I have finished the editing of the "Biography" subsections and overall the writing is good. For the most part, I just needed to work on the following: Manual of Style: Expressions Manual of Style: Information style and tone Concise language / brevity You seem very articulate for someone with English as a second language. Do you feel comfortable editing the remaining sections based upon these points? Thanks, I've really liked reading this article!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:First of all: Thank you for creating Ester Ellqvist!! That was marvelous! :) I did not know if she met the notability criteria for the English WP. Hope you don't mind if I tweak, add and fix things with it later. And so: I have no trouble at all with the regrouping. The headings are just labels, the text is still the same. You are so much more experienced with the WP style than I am. I trust your judgment. Fine by me. Multiple short sections makes it easier to read and find facts in the text. I think the award in better like this. It's not that notable, I just stumbled upon it by chance so let's not make a big deal of it. That part works in both sections, I just had not thought about it that way. And I think readers are looking for things about his art more that his personality. I moved the self-portrait though. With the "person" section so small, it was getting a bit crowded in that part of the main text, with one large pic just above pushing the portrait into the next section and the quotation and all. Since the pic was painted in Italy it could belong in that section as well. Hope you agree. Correspondence is fine as a note. I was just confused since the Swedish word for "legacy" means more like "all things left behind". The English word is more non-material. Mea culpa. "Biography". Check. — ** Ok. Will study these as well. Gulp...well "comfortable" is hardly the word I would use, more like "freaked out", but I can certainly give it a try. No promises that I will succeed though. The pic switch prev discussed is done and captions are fixed + the citation needed are gone. I also changed the gallery setting to "perrow 5" since this will allow all the pics in one row on most modern widescreen format computers. Thanks for all your had work! Best, w.carter-Talk 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Article about Ester, yes W.carter, I struggled with notability, but included her because 1) her role as a model for Bauer's work, 2) she was a painter born in the 19th century, when it was unusual for women to become painters, and 3) I found information about her, albeit most of it was in Swedish which cramps how much I can do. There is a very good bachelor's thesis about her, written in Swedish, which cannot be used directly as a reliable source, but has a wealth of cited information to draw on for research. I enjoy writing about women born in the 19th century before who were artists - and created a template for Historic Swedish women artists (not sure this is the best title for the top of the template, but I went with it, any suggestions are appreciated!) I was very impressed by the number of women artists born in the 1600 and 1700s who were artists and had self-supporting careers!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:(edit conflict)Yes, she certainly deserves an article of her own. I don't know if you saw that the original text about Bauer included much more info about her since I felt that she had to be present as well. This was pruned in c/e to keep the focus on JB, so your bold move was really welcome. I'm sure I can find some more good material about her. Women artist have always been around, it's just that "history" chose to forget them. Title of the template looks good. What other way is there to say it? Some Swedish feminists (there are two opposing fractions) may have some issues with keeping them separate from the men, but WP is American so... Best, w.carter-Talk 17:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter:Sections comments - cool, I'll close out the issue in the checklist about sections. Legacy - the word, as used in the Wikipedia article Legacy sections, means specific, notable outcomes of his or her career. Biography / following sections - oh, sorry - I wasn't clear. I'm through with the biography section and was looking for edits to the Career and following sections. I am happy to divide and conquer - but it would be good if took a stab at some of this. I am happy to work on the "Legacy", "Collections" and "Popular culture" sections - and maybe we can split some of the Career section. Pictures - looks good Exhibitions - do you have a citation for the list of exhibitions? We're getting there, the article is a really coming along and I love the subject!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:Ok, let's see if we can clear this up. :) I understand that you are done with the biography section, I just meant that I have to study your edits and all the WP style-things better if I am to do any further editing. In your previous statement here a small but important word got lost: "- but it would be good if ??? took a stab at some of this." I assume the missing word is "you". :) And if you just tell me what sections I should do, I'll certainly go for it. I did the citation for the exhibitions hours ago?? Are they not correct? w.carter-Talk 17:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Ah, yes, thanks. The review of the biography section makes sense - both from the perspective of seeing the type of changes I made - and to ensure that I've not changed the intended meaning of the content. Yep, I missed the word "you" - thanks for clarifying that If you could start with the career section, that would be good - and I'll work on the sections that I mentioned (legacy, popular culture, collections) in the meantime, if that works for you. My thinking is that you're very familiar with his career - and I'm familiar with the type of content for the legacy, popular culture and collections sections. Does that work for you? I'll hold off on any edits right now and if you could let me know when it's good for me to begin those edits then I'll start at that time. Sorry, I just remembered when I added comments about the citation missing tag I added - and added the comment without checking, sorry about that. Great clarifications!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC) You can go right ahead and do your edits. I have a bit of reading to do before I start :), and besides... my head is spinning right now, this is all kind of new to me and I'm learning as I am trying to keep up with you! The article is yours for the evening, so no editing conflicts. If I feel like doing any work here just to relax, I have other articles to work on. See ya, w.carter-Talk 18:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Maybe it's good to slow down for a bit. Head spinning and gulps are not fun. And, adding more edits for review just add to your workload. I can hold off for a bit - there's been a lot done in a short period of time. Thanks so much for your input and great intention! I'll keep an eye out for the watchlist for changes and when it's a good time to chime back in again.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

Discussion

@W.carter: I'm not meaning to press at all - please consider the following at your leisure. I felt bad about the process becoming overwhelming (and having been on the other side as a native English writer, I understand part of what you are feeling). I created Talk:John Bauer (illustrator)/work page with some suggestions / thoughts in bold and strike out to consider for a couple of the Career subjections. Again, look at this when you're ready to come back in and let me know if this is helpful. They are just suggestions for your consideration.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson: No need to apologize! :) It's not the first time this has happened to med here at the WP. Editors tend to get exited when they have a newbie eager to learn and soon forget that I have to absorb first in order to be able to learn anything new. :) So I have developed the "bad habit" of kindly saying "enough for now". Don't be offended by it. I have been reading this entire evening and I think I'm beginning to get some grip on it. I glanced at you new page (thank you) and I had already come to some of the same conclusions. Don't think that I'm ungrateful, but can I please try this for myself first? It's the best way of seeing if I've got it right? Like taking a test and later check the result to see how I did? Just to learn better. Good night for now, w.carter-Talk 22:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Absolutely (and I had to make some tweaks, I messed up the bolding). Sure, sounds like a plan. I absolutely wasn't trying to press... take your time and approach it as you like. Night.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:So, I've made my "stab" at the article, let's just hope I did not wound it too much. Haven't had time to go over the sections a second time to look for typos and blatant mistakes, but it will be interesting to hear what the preliminary verdict is. One of the reasons I want to learn as much as possible right now is that I have another article in the GAN queue, and it would be nice to be able to tweak it as much as possible before the review starts. And it's never wrong to know how to write other nice articles. :) Your tips and links to more exact parts of the MOS has been extremely helpful! They have made me look at the article from a very new angle, just hope it helped. I made two new notes. These are covered by the "next" inline citation in the main text. Is that enough or should the same refs be used in the notes like in note 2? All the best, w.carter-Talk 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Sounds great! I'm in the midst of something at the moment and I know it's getting late for you - so I'll take a look at them later and any comments will be ready for you tomorrow.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Great work on the changes between these versions. You've done a really good job - particularly as your edits progressed. Your tag at another conversation "the cleaner" is appropriate - I would be impressed if you were a native speaker. Intro - I really like where you're headed with the additional sentence. What do you think about the tweaks to: "His illustrations and paintings broadened the understanding and appreciation of Swedish folklore, fairy tales and landscape." (which implies in general / globally) Modernism - in the context of the sentence it makes tons of sense to put the examples in a note, but what do you think about wording it as a sentence rather than captions? Subjects - Your changes to the first paragraph looks good. Regarding the second paragraph, I understand where you're going, but I thought of it as an expression through his friend's eyes and so I thought it didn't need to be as formal. I thought the way it was originally worded was good. I'm a little confused by the changes. Inspiration - The changes look good. Two minor tweaks: "carriers" should be "careers" - and "became" in regards to the pleats should be stated as a completed action rather than something in progress (i.e., tense). Perhaps the word "were" could be used instead of "became". Style - the words "resemble" and "motif" were good changes. Regarding "one where the motif is depicted as in the summer and one where the same motif is covered with snow." what do you think about something like... "one where the motif is depicted in a summer and winter scene" or "one where the motif is depicted several ways, like a landscape represented in different seasons" Style item #2 - I like the changes that you've made regarding the printing process. To take it a step further there are a couple of grammatical errors: "printing with all colors", "his works became more in demand", "the pictures gained more color." Perhaps phrases like "full-color printing" and "his works were in greater demand" and "the pictures were produced with more color" would be better. In the last two cases the issue is tense (in progress vs. done) and a matter of control - It's Bauer who has the pictures produced with more color - it's not something left up to fate. (I'm very tired, I hope that makes sense) Watercolor - looks good Among Gnomes and Trolls... - You've done an especially good job on this section. Minor tweaks "Bauers pictures" should be "Bauer's pictures", showing possession. "Painings" typo. The sentence: "An improvement for Bauer, as the prints more closely resembled his original paintings" is not a complete thought. Tuvstarr - looks great! Oil paintings - looks great! Large works - looks great! I'm very impressed - really great editing!! I think I'm finally getting the distinction about timing of the introduction of modernism... I've written about it from the perspective of its early days in Paris in the 1870s and 1880s - but I'm getting the point that was among a small group of people and didn't spread til later. Perhaps a ramble and a good time to sign-off.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Hi Carole, I just glad I didn't mess it up totally. :-/ Re "cleaner" I refer to my user page. The lax attitude at the SweWiki has unfortunately tagged along to this eminent WP with a bunch of articles related to Sweden. My improved edits must be credited to your good tutoring. Thank you, much appreciated! Comments on your suggestions: Re Intro - I saw your note in the review and just tagged my sentence to the article as a reminder. (It was in the middle of the night and I had become a bit obsessive with the article...) Your suggestion is much more eloquent. Taken. Modernism - will do. Subjects - I was just afraid it was not clear enough that the entire thing was said by his friend. Overthinking. I will revert it to the original text. Inspiration - ooops, will fix! Style - Ah, the word "scene" was the very word that eluded me yesterday. Will use that. Style item #2 - Your suggestions so much better. I was stuck in the raw translation of the text from the book, Will fix. Also look into the next thing about the grammar. Watercolor - Tnx! Among Gnomes and Trolls... - Will fix typos and sentence. Tnx, Tnx & Tnx! Re modernism, according to the books it came later in Sweden (remember: this is the boonies) and it did not filter into the academy where Bauer studied until later. The old geezers there had the Swedish art scene in a firm grip. More about this change in Einar Jolin my other GAN (which I can now tweak, thanks to you :) ). That was the first major article I worked on. The language in it is much better since it was co-written with and edited by Philg88. Is there any way I can halt it the GAN queue until I've tweaked it? I'll sort out the above things after one more comment at Ester, a shower and dinner. Best, w.carter-Talk 17:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: Article edits - all of your comments sound good Einar Jolin, I started the review page - putting it on hold for item #1. In the meantime I can work on assessment of items #2 and if any additional comments are needed re: 2+, I'll make them on the article talk page Modernism - thanks, makes sense!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:  Done — I think... Had a bit of trouble with the "An improvement for Bauer..." in the "Among G..." section. Hope this works. What's next here? Oh my, you started the review on Einar Jolin! Gosh! Well, at least you know what kind of crazy user you have to deal with now.:) w.carter-Talk 19:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: The edits looks good! I made a minor tweak to the notes about the modernist paintings. Yesterday I made some minor edits to the Legacy and Popular Culture section. I'm not seeing any other issues (re: Gnome section, etc.) right now. Next steps: 1. I'd like to read the article through one more time now, from start to finish (getting away from the trees and seeing the forest). Not that I'm expecting to find anything, but just to get a good sense of how the article flows now. 2. I think it would be good to solicit opinions from the editor that did copy-editing and others to see if there are any issues / concerns about the changes from a stability perspective. What do you think about this? How to approach it? 3. I sometimes toy with perrow change to 3 for the gallery - or "packing" the gallery since in my view it wraps to two rows with the second row having one image. But, I don't have strong feelings about it. 4. That's all I can think of - do you have anything else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Regarding Einar, I've not started the review yet, I just tagged a hold for copyediting - and I'll look at the items 2+ in the coming couple of days. No rush. If you'd like a time frame specified for the hold (a week, etc.), that works. By the way, to some of your earlier comments, it has very much been my pleasure working with you. I like that you're thoughtful, conscientious, and push-back on items that don't make sense to you (I forget what it was about earlier in the review).--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:I will very much enjoy working with you on Einar. You are clear, concise and adjust your tempo for the newbie while at the same time getting the job done. As for time on Einar, no need to specify anything. I have some time off this weekend, so I'll probably do most of the work then. 1. A read through, always a good idea. 2. By all means. There are some people that I think might have opinions about this article. Why don't I make a new section and invite them here for a look? 3. I don't have any strong opinion about the gallery. I was just being selfish about my computer screen. 4. Nope. Don't think so. If I do come up with something, there's always the FAN. :) --- w.carter-Talk 20:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter:Great! 1. Good. 2. Please. 3. I changed the mode to packed - see what you think. 4. Sounds like a good plan!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson:Packed is very good!! I saw it for the first time on Ester and it's really growing on me. w.carter-Talk 21:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @W.carter: I have a couple of questions: Should the section heading for "Tuvstarr" be in italics as in the title of the painting? Should "The fairy princess" be capitalized ("The Fairy Princess")? Update:  Done saw it was previously capitalized in the article--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Should "Karlskrona school for girls" be capitalized ("Karlskrona School for Girls"), for instance is it's name Karlskrona School for Girls vs. a school for girls in Karlskona? My inclination for #2 and 3 would be yes. I don't know about #1. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @CaroleHenson: No. Tuvstarr is just the name of the princess, not the name of the painting. All of Bauer's illustrations have long name equal to the section in the text which they illustrate. The caption at the pics is the exact title for it. Lucky you caught this since the painting is mentioned in the first sentence and that one is wrong. I'll correct it. Yes. Capital on Eng not Swe. Yes. Capital on Eng not Swe. It should be written: the Karlskrona flickläroverk (The Karlskrona School for Girls), missed that one. Tnx! -- w.carter-Talk 22:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC) @W.certer: Great! I made the change to the school name, am done rereading the article, and I'm reading to close out 1a.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.