Talk:Fredmans epistlar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge with constituent articles[edit]

The constitutent Epistles are not yet big enough for free standing articles. JASpencer (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything against it.

Article title[edit]

Fredman's Epistles or Epistles of Fredman? Until we have a good source I think the article sits better under the Swedish, original, title. --Stighammar (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


In general, if you are proposing a move, you wait a week or two for some response to the proposal. However, since we now have both Swedish and English titles (two in the latter case, I just made a redirect) it probably doesn't matter much which is the home title. As for references, Fredman's Epistles is reliably sourced and used throughout Paul Britten Austin's Carl Michael Bellman, Allhem, 1967, indeed it is the title of a whole chapter, pages 60–93. But I had no idea you were awaiting a source until this moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The articles was called "Epistles of Fredman" [1] which made me slightly surprised. If Britten Austin uses "Fredman's Epistles" that sounds very good to me - moving the article to that title should be perfectly fine. --Stighammar (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think both English names are likely search terms. There is no pressure to switch back, unless someone knows of a reason not to use the Swedish name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fredmans epistlar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 15:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking this on.
  • I'll take this. I should note that I'm not familiar with Swedish literature, so I'll be taking a lay-man's view. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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. Good
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Good
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. Good
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). Good
2c. it contains no original research. Good
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Good
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Good
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. Within definition
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. +
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. +
7. Overall assessment. Good

Criteria[edit]

  • 5: Stable: -- This meets the GA criteria. After a burst of editing activity while the article was being expanded, there have not been any edits (let alone any edit warring).
  • 6: Images:
  • File:Fredmans Epistlar frontispiece.jpg - Obviously public domain, but the template could be modified (for "100 years after the death"; no way any of the listed people were still living in 1916). Technically to have PD-70 or PD-100 we should have death dates, but giving the age of the cover I think we can let that slide.
drawn by Johan Tobias Sergel d. 1814, engraved by Johan Fredrik Martin, d. 1816
Thanks. I've wikilinked the artists, it looks better with bluelinks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have it either, but its age isn't in doubt.
OK
OK
I added the labels, the map is William Coxe's. I had said so in the Commons description, I've now also said so in the Source section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Our "source" field needs to list both our own contribution (if any) as well as the original publication. It does now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
28 September 1816. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be noted on the information page (so we can see "Yes, he died more than 100 years ago) at a glance. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK
A facsimile of the 1790 sheet music reproduced in Kleveland 1984, page 124.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bellman anthology Göran Hassler illustrated Peter Dahl cover.jpg - Don't think this meets NFCC#8. We don't have to see Dahl's illustrations to understand "In 1989, the Swedish government subsided an edition of Bellman's Epistles and Songs, with illustrations by Peter Dahl, to bring the texts to a wide audience". The illustrations aren't discussed in any detail, and the cover itself is not necessary to understand that sentence.
You're right, it'd need an article on the book itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be recorded anywhere, 18th century printers often reused woodblocks anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. In that case, PD-anon-1923 would be the best template (unless Bellman was also known for illustration, this should be safe). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, done that. Bellman certainly didn't practise engraving. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's forbidden, and it seemed to look all right here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1: Prose comments[edit]

  • Overall, I'm confused by these first few sections. You mention in the lede that there are so many epistles, then give no detail on these up front, instead going directly to characters. The fact that there are characters suggests that the lyrics form narrative poems, but we don't have a summary of any or illustration of common "storylines" (so to speak). Even the statement of there being "Rococo-themed pastorale with a cast of gods and demigods from classical antiquity, laments for the effects of Brännvin-drinking, lively tavern-scenes, and apparent skilfully crafted improvisations." None of this is readily apparent when the reader starts the article proper (i.e. outside the lead). If, indeed, the work 'had no model and can have no successors', this should be evident from the get go. Otherwise we end up confusing readers. There should, in other words, be discussion of the structure of the Epistles.
OK, I've added a brief overview, attempting some kind of introduction and summary, which I hope is helpful. I'm conscious that it's almost impossible to do this without repeating things said in the lead, the body, or both; but taking the old advice to speakers to heart, "Start by telling them what you're going to tell them. Tell it to them. Then tell them what you've told them.", I've cheerfully gone over the ground, trying not to assume the reader knows anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fredmans epistlar (English: Fredman's Epistles or Epistles of Fredman) is a collection of 82 poems set to music by the dominant figure in Swedish 18th century song, Carl Michael Bellman, first published in 1790, but created over a period of twenty years from 1768 onwards. - Too many clauses. I'd split this in two sentences.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ulla Winblad, based on one of Bellman's friends, is the chief of the fictional "nymphs", half goddess, half prostitute, of the demimonde characters of Fredman's Epistles. - Another one that could probably be split.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fit so well together." - Perhaps "their blending of poetry and music"?
No, it isn't that they blend, rather that they dance around each other and interweave so ingeniously. I think "fit together" is about as clear and brief as I can make it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Epistles are admired for the way that poetry and music fit so well together. Bellman chose not to compose the tunes, instead borrowing and adapting existing melodies, most likely to exploit the humour in contrasting the associations of a well-known tune with the meaning he gave to it, and perhaps also to provide historical depth to his work; he sometimes devoted considerable energy to adapting melodies to fit an Epistle's needs. - Also should be split.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some, like the principal characters Jean Fredman and Ulla Winblad, are based — to a certain extent — on real people, but are equally certainly fictionalised. - "based to a certain extent" implies fictionalization. Sentence feels rough
Cut the phrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • fictional "nymphs", half goddess, half prostitute, of the demimonde characters of Fredman's Epistles. - are all nymphs half goddess, half prostitute, or just the one?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The taverns - What taverns?
Stockholm's. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their backdrop, Stockholm's taverns" - Does their refer to the demimonde characters, the epistles, or nymphs? I'd expect the second, but the way the current phrasing is set up (with the epistles as a prepositional phrase) it appears to be the first. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Epistles it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among the more minor characters is the brandy-distiller Lundholm, and Norström, attached to and once said actually to be married to Ulla Winblad, just as the real Eric Nordström in fact married Maja-Stina Kiellström, the silk-spinner and "fallen woman" made pregnant by a passing nobleman, and supposed by everyone to "be" Ulla Winblad. - I've read this twice and have yet to get this.
Rewritten, hope that's better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bonnier, 1921. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never before, he stated, had the art of poetry and the art of music been more fraternally united. They were not, Kellgren argued, verse that had been set to music; not music, set to verse; but the two were so thoroughly melted together into One beauty (his emphasis), that it was impossible to see which would most miss the other for its fulfilment - What's the original quote? If this is a translated direct quote, we should make it clear that we are using his voice here. Otherwise we should rewrite this in Wikipedia's voice.
Said "in Kellgren's view". Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting this (in Swedish) - Do we need "in Swedish"
Dropped. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is remarkable that all or almost all the tunes are borrowed. - According to whom?
Massendale: now it says so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • that Bellman was certainly able to write a tune, - Evidence for this? In a footnote, perhaps. Also, "certainly" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic
Again, Massendale, and it says so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I meant an explanatory footnote, not a citation. "Bellman composed X operettas" or whatever. Not necessary now that you note in the overview section that he was also a composer. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Said "borrowing". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should note who Britten Austin is on first mention.
Said "His biographer". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview section helps considerably. I've split it into two paragraphs, however.
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention that there are eighty-two epistles in the overview section as well, but that's me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've added the two key dates, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They soon became popular - How did people get a hold of them? Or did he start performing the epistles in '68? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, performances; I've said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fire in Epistle 34; a funeral is busily prepared in Epistles 46 and 47; a fight in Epistle 53. - feels like you're missing a conjunction
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize "Epistle" or "epistle" ("Epistles" or "epistles") when referring to epistles as a general noun (i.e. you have "Different characters appear in different epistles" but "The pastoral Epistles,"
Epistle it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Over 500 recordings of Bellman's Fredman's Epistles or Fredman's Songs have been placed on YouTube" - Seems to be a questionable use of a primary source. Unless someone else has reported this, I'd argue not to include it.
OK, I think it useful but have removed it, never mind. One could of course argue that YouTube is secondary, merely being a medium, the recording artists being primary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsection List of Fredman's epistles is very proseliney. Any way of fleshing it out or breaking up the list? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, we had a list, now farmed out and better for it. I've written summaries of half-a-dozen of the most popular Epistles, and though I say it myself, it does look better. I hope you like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major editions of the complete work include: - Several of the works listed are selections.
Said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be fitting to begin with - Very essayish.
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, No. 28, I går såg jag ditt barn, min Fröja (Yesterday I saw thy child, my Freya), tells, in Rococo style, the tale of an attempt to arrest the "nymph" Ulla Winblad, based on a real event. - Probably worth simplifying.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second round[edit]

  • The Epistles are admired for the way that their poetry and music fit so well together. - This sentence still strikes me as odd. "For the way it combines..." for the way it... "for their fraternal union of poetry and music"?
Perhaps this is my variant of the language; to me, the alternative wordings mean something different. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a few changes; be sure to check them out
They seem fine, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate links: #The Epistles: Rococo, #Rococo theme: Rococo, Pastorale, #Realism: Pastoral, Lake Mälaren, Hogarth, #Fitted to music: Johan Henric Kellgren, #Impact: Shakespeare, Beethoven, Mozart. Up to you which ones you want to keep ; just pointing them out. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tidied up. I'd almost leave all of them in a longish article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2: Referencing comments[edit]

All comments are based on this revision.

  • Standardize your short footnotes: author, year. page(s), author, year, page(s), or author, page(s) (compare FN 1 & 2 & 33, among others)
Author, year, page(s). Personally I'd say it was fine (better) to leave the year out when there's only one work, but if it looks better with the clutter, who am I to object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize if you abbreviate page(s) or not (compare FN 11 & 12)
Page it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not done in several footnotes (Current 7, 18, etc). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Er, those are long form (cite ref...) and I just get what the template gives. Are you suggesting there's a switch to adjust the template's output? I'd think that not necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fredman's Epistle No. 25. --> Shouldn't this be Fredman's Epistle No. 25.?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize if you have a period after the page range in short foot notes (compare FN 20 & 21)
Period, period. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize if you use a 13 digit or 10 digit ISBN (13 digit is recommended by WP:ISBN). This website will help you reformat the ten digit ISBNs to thirteen digit (or vice versa)
13. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • En bok för alla. Litteraturfrämjandet. Lågpris tack vare statsbidrag - Is this a chapter in one of the books, or is this a newspaper article? Full bibliographic information should be included.
Used short ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 32 needs an ndash for the page range
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly likely to be wrong on such a simple matter of fact, and verifiable against the CD itself. I've replaced it with Discogs, which is often cited for albums. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Britten Austin 1999 - ISBN or OCLC?
ISBN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second Hassler and Dahl book has "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" next to it. I'm assuming this means that there is an issue with the format of the author names. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly looks good. One point above, and one I missed: standardize whether or not you include the location of publishers (compare current FN 18 and 19, as well as the works in #Sources). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Location for books only. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3: Comprehensiveness[edit]

  • This is my big issue, after reading the article a few times. First, of the numerous "major" editions you mention in the list towards the bottom of the page, you only discuss one in any detail: "In 1989, the Swedish government subsided an edition of Bellman's Epistles and Songs, with illustrations by Peter Dahl, to bring the texts to a wide audience."
Let me deal with this in stages, please (so, forgive me for separating out the sub-questions in this item). Firstly, let's ditch the "major": basically, the editions are all reprints, except for the occasional critical introduction: nobody has tried to improve the music or words, barring slight modernisation of Swedish spelling and the gentle addition of guitar chord names here and there; and there was only the one edition in Bellman's lifetime. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the first edition? I'm sure that's worth at least a few sentences.

Essentially the whole article is about the first edition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole article is about the text. The actual printed edition itself is not given much discussion. The Swedish Wikipedia says it was published/printed by Olof Åhlström, who is not mentioned anywhere in the current article. We include illustrations from subsequent editions; did this first edition include any? How well did it sell? Etc. etc. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a paragraph about the first edition, using Olof Åhlström. The frontispiece at the top of the article is from the first edition, as is the small pastoral head-piece engraving; it was not otherwise illustrated. On sales, about all we can say is that many editions were (and still are being) produced over the years. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about Paul Britten Austin's Fredman's epistles and songs, (the first? an?) English language edition?

It's the only English language edition, and it's only partial. I've added a paragraph on it, complete with Britten Austin's own caveats about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any performances considered the definitive recording?

Åkerström and Vreeswijk are the closest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second, the reception section feels very bare-boned. We've got one quote from King Gustav (shortly after the sentence about the 1989 edition, so the chronological jump is a shocker) and then two modern and then another contemporary (speaking of which, when was Kellgren's introduction first included? Couldn't have been 1921, unless it had only recently been discovered). You say that they were popular, but have little further information on this. How popular? Did many singers imitate Bellman in the 1790s? How about in the 1800s, how were the Epistles received then? Did they appear to fade from memory, only to be "rediscovered" later, or were they consistently popular?
I've reorganised it into contemporary and modern subsections to neutralise the shock, and have extended the account to cover the 19th century. There is no evidence of imitation during his lifetime. Kellgren's writings were contemporary with Bellman; the 1921 edition saw fit to use them. I can't find any figures on his contemporary popularity, though it is known he was popular both at court and among the people. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of background reading suggests that this was a parody or spoof of biblical stories (here) and that Bellman faced some resistance for that.
Almost - the bible parodies are Fredman's Songs, the subject of another article: they are much lighter and without either the narrative element or the combined Stockholm/Rococo setting of the Epistles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could make it clearer that there was a historical Fredman, which "based on" doesn't imply (i.e. he could be based on another person, with his name changed). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice. I'm pleased with the comprehensiveness (nothing strikes me as missing, at least as a casual reader). In the next couple of days I'm going to give the prose a once-over again and check the reference formatting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'm going to fix a gate in my garden. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4: NPOV[edit]

Throughout the article there are numerous terms such as "powerful" etc. which are not directly attributed. I'm worried that this pushes the article into POV in a few places. A few more hedges would help greatly.

Tweaked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further suggestions[edit]

  • Alright, this looks great. Only two outstanding comments up there (at the time of this post), and neither of them are deal breakers. I'll be passing this as GA now.
Many thanks! I can't see any leftovers, maybe I just did them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few suggestions in case you plan to bring this to a higher level. They will not affect this article's GA status.

    • Perhaps an indication of which Epistles were written first (i.e. which ones became popular in the 1760s, etc.)
Good idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to consult more Swedish sources. The article leans rather heavily on Britten Austin, and though that's understandable it would still be nice to have a few more voices.
Also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would revisit that question of pp. vs. page in long form citations. Not going to affect anything here, but if you bring this to a higher level of review that might be a sticking point.15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Deeper into Wikicode than ever before! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fredmans_epistlar&oldid=1201278348"