Jump to content

Talk:Einar Jolin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Dear Editor.

To the kind person/s helping me getting this article right.

  • The original article was written in a very contrived and old fashioned language. I have tried to bring it up to date while staying true to the original. It is written by a Swedish art aficionado, more accustomed to paper than the Internet.
  • Due to this it is lacking in clear references. During my translation I found some while digging around and put them where they belong. But like many of the older articles I know that it is not up to par with today's standard on Wiki. But I am a translator and not a researcher.
  • While I know many English words and is somewhat familiar with phrases and such, it is always the little things/words that get me in trouble. So please correct them!
  • I had no idea what format would be best for the quotes, so I just took the first one. Again not enough knowledge about Wiki-style. Yet.
  • A note: In the quotes, "man" and "mankind" is referred to as "she". In Swedish the word for man/mankind is genderless and totally neutral. Jolin always refers to mankind as "she", and therefore I left it like that since it is a direct quote. Even if it might sound a bit wrong in English.
  • The guy who wrote the original article is obviously very fond of the artist, and the text is therefore a bit exaggerated and perhaps unnecessary long.
  • And since I've struggled with the text for some time I'm probably blind to many other things that are wrong in it, but I hope that is what team work is for.
  • I have a Swedish keyboard so I've noticed that sometimes I get the wrong symbols from it. Very annoying!
  • The articles marked with the {{ill}}, template are articles I plan to get on with as soon as this one is out of my sandbox. Thanks to Anomalocaris for that suggestion and all the encouragement given!W.carter (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Initial edits

Hi there, I've made a few initial changes to the article, and some further comments below.

  • The Wikipedia style guide prefers locations of birth and death to be handled in the article body, not the first sentence of the lead, i.e like this (dd mm yy - dd mm yy), you have also missed out the date of death. Move the place of birth to the "Early life and education section" and the date of death to the "Family and death section" and work them both into the prose.
  • There seems to be some other text at the end of the article under the heading "Passive Business Plans". You should move this somewhere else to avoid confusion, particularly for when the draft moves into the main article space.
  • Keep an eye on your style. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay and should not reflect your personal views. For example "Although it can sometimes be sensed that this entire ruckus was too much for the refined and elegant Jolin." is not a statement of fact but of opinion, which is why I've removed it.
  • Never use words like "famous", this is what's called a "peacock" term, instead use "notable", "best known" etc. Terms like "breathtaking" should also be avoided.
  • Words like "atelier" are not familiar to the majority of English readers, in this case I have used "apartment" instead.
  • When you assert something to be a fact, you need to provide a citation from a reliable source. For example: "Matisse studies created by the group in the 1910s are considered among the best paintings produced in Sweden during the 20th century." requires attribution to one or more notable source who recorded that opinion in writing.

I'll leave you to do some polishing based on my copyediitng and the points above. Please leave me a message on my talk page when you would like me to take another look. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 06:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.

Thank you so much for your edits. They are really helpful. I totally agree with you about the style. But then again it is not my style, but the style of the guy who wrote it. There are things in it I would never write in an article for Wiki! So now I'll Be Bold and switch from translator to editor. I'll be in touch as soon as I've done the editing. BTW I looked at all your achievements on your user page, and I'm still in awe that you would consider editing my first major article!

  • About the no-use of the word "atelier". Could that be substituted with "studio" instead? The word "apartment" suggests he lived there, which he did not. He only used it for his work.
  • At ref#4 I used the English version of his nickname in the text so that the contrast between the two painters is easier to understand than if I used the Swedish original there, and the English in the footnote.
  • I kept the rather colorful descriptions of the paintings since they correspond very well with the art and they are also useful since there are no pictures of the art in the article.
  • Oh, one last thing: How do I get my sandbox back? This one´s been converted into a draft and would really like someplace to muck about with another article while this is being reviewed. - W.carter (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I've done some more work on the draft as follows:
  • I've switched "atelier" to "studio workshop".
  • Birth and death dates in the lead have been "Wikified".
  • I assume that based on Anomalocaris' kind help you now have your sandbox back.
Another couple of observations:
  • Avoid essay type non-neutral statements like:
"Continental Europe and the teaming art life in Paris held great allure for most young artists at the beginning of the 20th century"
"Inspiration was everywhere, for Jolin as well as for so many before him like Paul Cézanne and Georges Seurat, but also from all the other contemporary artists gathering from all over the world"
You may be 100% correct in your assertions, but you cannot include this type of thing in an encyclopedia article unless someone or something notable (i.e. a reliable source) recorded an identical opinion.
  • Overall, the referencing needs to improve. The rule of thumb is that there should be at least one reference per paragraph, and more if it is a long paragraph with a lot of detail.
The article is shaping up nicely and I'm sorry if I appear pedantic, but Wikipedia's integrity is paramount and we all have to follow guidleines to maintain that. Best,  Philg88 ♦talk 08:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks to Anomalocaris and Philg88 for editing and advice. I don´t mind you being pedantic. I totally agree that there should be more references, but again I did not write the original and I do not have access to the books in the reference list so I can´t provide the references. That is for a researcher to do. I can always delete unwanted sections, and I´ll do it. Earlier Anomalocaris advised me "...to contribute to Wikipedia in whatever manner pleases you." So maybe I should just stick to translating well referenced articles, since translating is what I do. - W.carter (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I have left a message regarding the references on the talk page of the guy who wrote the article. There was also a note from the Swedish editors asking him to do the same. This was in 2012. - W.carter (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed the "ill"-markings on this page. I was planning to move on to those articles, especially to Jolins wife (the daughter of an illegitimate son to tsar Alexander III) but these are very poorly referenced and I dare not touch such an article again. - W.carter (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

...and if the gods are smiling upon you, it will succeed.

I bemoaned my fate of having no references for my article to a neighbor. He said: "I think I have some art books that might be relevant..." Lo and behold! He had two of the most important books for the article! So now the draft is littered with references and I don´t know if I wrote them all the right way. I am perplexed on how to name one reference in several places and not just repeat it. It looks messy. And also one book had numerous references, but on different pages. I´m not sure I got that right. - W.carter (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You are making good progress. There are several things that need fixing. I believe you are referencing a book using {{cite web}}. Your first reference is
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://libris.kb.se/bib/1833312 |last=Jolin |first=Einar |title=Einar Jolin. |series=Liljevalchs katalog, 0349-1137 ; 224 |year=1957 |location=Stockholm }} p4.</ref>
If the information is actually on this web page, the reference is OK. But if the information is actually on page 4 of a book that this web page is describing, you should be using {{cite book}} instead, with the |title= parameter set to the book title and the |page= parameter set to the page number (or |pages= for multiple pages).
I compliment you for not falling into the academic standard but non-Wikipedia approach of indicating the re-use of the same or similar references with ibid., idem. and op. cit. However, repeating identical references is also not Wikipedia way. If you need to use the above reference more than once, rather than repeating it, name it once, something like this:
<ref name="Liljevalchs p. 4">{{cite web |url=http://libris.kb.se/bib/1833312 |last=Jolin |first=Einar |title=Einar Jolin. |series=Liljevalchs katalog, 0349-1137 ; 224 |year=1957 |location=Stockholm }} p4.</ref>
and then reuse it simply
<ref name="Liljevalchs p. 4"/>
The closing slash character closes out the <ref> tag without the need for the corresponding </ref>. You don't need to use quotes around the ref name if the ref name has no embedded spaces.
So, you can improve the references by combining identical references, but then you will still have many similar references that differ only by page number. There are a number of approved Wikipedia solutions to this, and probably the most popular is the approach used in Harriet Arbuthnot, where the footnotes appear in a Notes section with each book named as briefly as possible, usually just by the author's last name, and a page number, and then below that in the References section, each book is fully described.
This is all explained in Help:Referencing for beginners, especially the under the heading "Alternative system". —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. I tried looking at the help section but it my initial experimentation came out all wrong. You should really be writing that section, your explanation is so much more comprehensible.
The cite web in question is a link to the book at the Swedish Royal Library data base. I thought it was more accurate than just the book cite. I have also ordered another major book to our small library so I can check more references with it. It´ll take a couple of days before it gets here. I would clean up the ref as you advised, but the superfast User:Philg88 is already at work with it. But now I know what to do when the next book arrives. In the meantime I will read the help and beginners pages more thoroughly. I should be able to understand more of them now. Kind as you are, I can´t be bothering you forever. :)
Is there a way I can create a page of my own to copy and store all these useful advice, sort of like a note book? I would hate to loose it all if the article gets approved. It would be best to have it on a Wiki formatted page so none of the text gets corrupted. - W.carter (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw the message above after I had finished the latest round of editing. The referencing isn't finished but what I've done should give you the examples you need to complete it. Some of this advice duplicates what Anomalocaris points out above, other than I haven't used the notes paradigm. Nevertheless, the reference section is a lot more concise now.
  • I have used the {{sfn}} template for the book references and <ref name = "XXXX" /> where there are multiple citations.
  • Please note when using {{cite book}} "editor" is not the same as "author" (which you mixed up with the reference to Kungliga och Norra begravningsplatserna (vandringar bland berömda personers gravar).
  • accessdate is not used with books - only web sites.
  • Don't use "date=" when citing books, use "year="
I've also done a bit more copyediting, and my personal view is that you should dump the red links and the {{ill}}s as they detract from readability.
Once the referencing is done, with a bit more polishing the article will be ready for the main space and hopefully on its way to a B class assessment as a first step. After that, particularly if we can find a couple of images of Jolin's paitings, there is no reason why it cannot became a "Good Article".
 Philg88 ♦talk 09:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
WOW! That was fast! With speed like that you must have some tights and a cape tucked away somewhere. So, a lot more to learn. I will study and proceed with the editing during the week (I have a lot to do at my regular work so it will take some time).
Some pictures would be nice, there are many on the web but none at Wiki Commons so copyright would be an issue. Not my area of expertise. I could scan one of the books, it´s from 1957 so more than 50 years old, but I don´t know if that counts. I should probably ask at the Teahouse. - W.carter (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No tights or cape, just a magic WikiwandTM :) As long as Jolin's pictures are not uploaded to Commons they can be claimed under English Wikipedia's "Fair Use" criteria. See this Picasso painting as an example. If you find know of suitable images online, please post the appropriate links on my talk page —I know I could do the search myself, but you created the article so it's your call. Once I have image targets I will sort out the required graphic and licensing issues and upload them.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

regarding Liljevalchs katalog, maybe I am missing something, but I still think you want {{cite book}} and I still think you want to move this to the Bibliography and reference the various pages (4, 5, 7, etc.) using shortened footnotes. By the way, it's fine to use the (´) character on this page, but in articles, use the plain typewriter apostrophe ('). —Anomalocaris (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
@Anomalocaris: I agree, the edits I did were as examples of how to use sfn and named references and are not the finalised draft.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you guys! This is a lot for me to digest and learn, and it will take some time. I will get on with the editing soon, but right now I have a lot to do at my regular work so don´t think I have disappeared if nothing happens for a day or two.
I know about the (´) vs ('). These characters are not used in Swedish so the (') do not exist on my keyboard and I have to copy and paste it when I´m working on an article. I´m just being lazy and ignore the difference when posting on a talk page.
The reason I posted the question about pictures at the Teahouse was so I could learn how to do it the right way on my own. I can, and will, post some appropriate links on User:Philg88 talk page, but I can´t rely on you two, my new guardian angles, to do all the work for me. :) - W.carter (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Images of paintings exhibited before 1923 can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as they are no longer covered by copyright. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Indeed they can under US copyright, but since he lived until 1976 and EU copyright law differs, I thought it best to cover all the bases.  Philg88 ♦talk 05:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Last time on Einar Jolin...

So, I have sorted out the ref. in the manner used in Harriet Arbuthnot as suggested by Anomalocaris. Since that is a Featured Article, I could see nothing wrong with that system, and I think it looks very tidy. I've also cleaned up some mistakes that were made simply because you don't speak Swedish.

Having the actual book Liljevalchs Katalog in my hands changed some things. It turns out there are some mistakes in the url. The book is not written by Jolin but by Liljevalchs as a catalogue for the exhibition. This is why I put this name in the ( last= ). The whole thing becomes much more comprehensible then, especially with the references and all. I also found one reference, previously credited to another book, in the Liljevalchs as well. So I substituted it in the ref.list for accuracy.

I am still waiting for the second book to appear, so PLEASE do not do anything to the draft until I've had a chance to use it! You guys are so fast and I am only a newbie. This is my first major article, please remember that. I am thrilled that it might someday be transformed into a good article, and I want it just as much as you do, but this is also my learning curve so it'll take a bit longer that you are used to.

A treat for Anomalocaris: I have bought a new keyboard with the (') included.

I removed all the red links as suggested by User:Philg88. You are absolutely right, it makes for much easier reading. If I ever feel like translating these articles I'll simply have to revisit this article.

About pictures. I've read the Help section about pictures and the "Fair Use", looked at the templates, tried it out and it sure is complicated. As you were so very right to point out, I need help with this and I would very much appreciate it. At least now I have a sporting chance to understand some of what's going on.

I have selected three pictures that ties into the text very nicely. They are all from the Liljevalchs exhibition page. Since I suspect permits have to be obtained it might be easier to deal with a seasoned art venue with close ties to Jolin. Links:

http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/interior-med-ung-dam-ebba-pantzerhielm/

http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/stockholm-fran-soders-hojder/

http://www.liljevalchs.se/utstallningar/jolin-1/paronkvist/

Sorry about all the small "save" during an editing session, but I'm always afraid to lose something. - W.carter (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, during my browsing the Wiki for ideas on how to do things I've stumbled across some articles with translation so bad even I notice it. Thanks be to Higher Beings that I have you guys to guide and correct me! Sometimes I'm really itching to do some correcting or ad a reference I've stumbled upon. But I guess I should butt out until I know more. And I've noticed that some contributors are very proprietorial about their articles. Hope I outgrow that tendency as soon as I have all the references in place and am more up to speed with editing. - W.carter (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
One of the fundamental editing rules of Wikipedia allows you to be bold. Since nothing ever gets deleted (well, that's not strictly true but it will do for the purposes of this conversation), if you make a mistake the previous version can always be restored from the page history. People claiming "ownership" of articles can be a nuisance, but if you are following the rules and are backed up by reliable sources, you will always win the argument in the end. If all else fails there are a number of places where you can voice your concerns. I'm working on the image uploads.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I've uploaded two of the images under the following licensing conditions:

You can see which templates I have used by viewing the source of the pages.

As for the third picture, this too would have to be uploaded under a fair use claim. Some editors would argue that given the length of the article one fair use image is sufficient. Hence I have not uploaded it. If you wish to do so, you will need to write a rationale similar to the one I wrote for Stockholm från Söders höjder.

I think that the article is ready for a move to the main space now, and time is important because of the current red links to Einar Jolin on the image pages. Use it or lose it!

 Philg88 ♦talk 08:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you think it's time then do it. (...scary!) I can always put the rest of the refs in place once it's up and running. I'm ok with two pictures, just thought I'd give you some options in case of trouble with the permits. Hope I put the pictures in the right place, editorial and timeline-wise. Otherwise feel free to move them. Again, many thanks! - W.carter (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Or should I do it? I really don't know the proper way to proceed at this point. I'm afraid to botch it up at this stage. - W.carter (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Go for it! Use the move option from the toolbar and set the target as Einar Jolin.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Now I really feel like an idiot, but what toolbar? What move option? I can't find it. - W.carter (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Found it, but unsure of what prefix to use. - W.carter (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 Done(Phew...) I think it worked. - W.carter (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Good job! Well done.  Philg88 ♦talk 12:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It has really been something so far. Switching from Swedish to English Wiki is like transferring from "Dad's Army" to the "U.S. Marines", and my boss is starting to wonder why I can't get any job done today. But we are not done yet... - W.carter (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Paintings as additional references?

Is this allowed on Wiki? Can I do this? I found some paintings on the web that very well illustrates some things in the article. And I thought I might try incorporating these in the text to give the reader easy access to something depicting the things mentioned in the text. I just did this at a few places so it is easy to remove if it is not appropriate.

  • at the "Jolin Residence" I found a painting of the house by Jolin and it looks just like it is described in the text.
  • when mentioning Jolins first meeting with Grünerwald I found a lithography by another artist of J & G and again it illustrates the text.
  • about the bullfight paintings here are links to two of these paintings so the reader can compare them in the same manner described in the text.

It this too Bold? The text itself does not rest on the pictures, they are just there as some kind of "illustrations". - W.carter (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of boldness here, more one of style. Rather than using the pictures as references, I would suggest that you put them in a new "External links" section with a description. If the links also contain a textual description or other info on the painting they are fine as references.  Philg88 ♦talk 07:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The links do contain additional information about the paintings so they can go in the reference area. Also, if they are moved to another new section they will more or less loose the direct connection to the part of the article they are illustrating like a multi media thing. I'll leave them for now and think about it and see if somebody else has an opinion on the matter. - W.carter (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, if they contain additional information about the picture(s) they are fine where they are.  Philg88 ♦talk 10:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New edit

A lot of new facts and references. I have posted notes about these on my talk page. - W.carter (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 17:51, 3 September 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.  Done - all of the following have been resolved:
  • Prose, grammar and spelling.
  • Further explain sentences or portions of sentences where the meaning may be unknown to the reader.
  • A few tense issues
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Correct "words to avoid" (idioms, cliches, etc.). Two examples: "right away", "came to naught" should be replaced with more direct words
  • Expand the lead. The John Bauer (illustrator) article could be used as an example for length and content.
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. This section is now  Done: 1) All content within the body of the article is cited. The notes regarding Gösta Adrian-Nilsson - and the one that starts out about the Swedish word for man could use citations. (The first note has a part without a citation, but the info is embedded in the text of the note). 2) I'm not used to seeing explanatory notes before the citations in the body of the article (e.g., [c][46] where "c" is the note). Ok, per input at Help talk:Footnotes (long, kind of complicated answer - but they looked at the page and said it was good) and Village Pump (it's in the same order of the sections).
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). This section is now  Done
  • Review and if necessary replace blogs (I think there are 2 - unless that there's a reason why the blogs would be considered reliable sources that I'm missing)  Done - and an essay that appears to be from a personal site (ditto on parenthetical comment, see reliable sources)
  • Ensure that sources are reliable, WP:Secondary sources.
  • Good faith assumed since the sources are Swedish. good
  • Please add a language parameter in the long citations (e.g., web sites}  Done
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.  DoneOne question, though, what specifically about Jolin's paintings reflect a naive style (e.g., perception, other)? And/or what does it mean to create Naive Expressionist paintings?
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Does not go into unnecessary detail.
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. Very good, cooperative effort on this article per article history, talk page and archived talk page.
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.  Done Yes, commons and wikipedia file information + discussion at #Works of art by Jolin
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  Done just one minor tweak in the photo of Jolin and his wife: "Jolins painting" should be Jolin's
7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Discussion

The article was previously on hold at the nominator's request and is now ready to be reviewed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead
  • If Jolin developed a type of Expressionism - is there a name for it? Or is the point that it's his personal style? Update Since you commented that it's his personal style: one approach might be to say "...best known for his decorative, slightly naïve Expressionist style." is one possible option for clarifying that it's his personal style.
  • Regarding "After studying at Konstfack, Stockholm in 1906 and at the Konstnärsförbundet målarskola (the Artists Association Art School), in 1908, Jolin and his friend Isaac Grünewald went to Paris for further studies at Henri Matisse's academy until 1914." To simplify the long sentence what do you think about having both years at the end of the sentence, like "from 1908 to 1914"?
  • "The mediums he used were mainly oil on canvas and watercolors" seems slightly awkward and might benefit from a tweak. Update based upon your request for a suggestion: "He mainly worked in oils and watercolor."
  • What do you think about additions to the lead - like where he traveled to (since it seems to be the subject of his works), a few career highlights, where he exhibited, and a bit of info about his personal life?
General
  • Art movements should be capitalized, like Expressionism in the intro. See MOS/Visual arts - Capitalization and art movements
  • Do you mind if I make edits for minor tweaks? Update I just going to try to limit the number of copy edits I make now that you've successfully got a GA under your belt. (Often, GA reviewers don't make any edits directly to an article + the less I edits that I make, the more you have control of the content). Where asked and where I think it might be helpful, I'll offer suggestions - but that's all that they are... you may have another way of wording it in your personal style. But I appreciate having your ok to make a few minor changes that don't really change the wording style.
Early life
  • Words: three story--> three-story (See English compound#Hyphenated compound modifiers); Town house-->townhouse; an other--> another; home-->house (I don't see this in Words to watch, but I've been told not to use home.)
  • Regarding "artist aunt", which I think is an example of use of an attributive noun, I wonder if it's better to say "artistic aunt" or "aunt, who is an artist". It's just such unusual usage to bump these two types of nouns together. It would be helpful to get input from @Philg88 and Onel5969: on this.  Done aunt fixed. w.carter-Talk 02:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilinks for Gustavian, such as Gustavian age. Even though this is a redirect, it's the appropriate phrase for the link, which could later be made into it's own article + links to other related artistic, etc. styles in that sentence.

--in progress, just saving for safety.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:Let's see if I can answer in an orderly fashion:
Lead
  • The point is that it was very much his own style, his trade mark.
  • Looking at the sentence now, it makes perfect sense. Please do. :)
  • I agree. That sentence was not "hatched" it was "contrived". Will think about it, suggestions welcome!
  • Why not? I was just afraid that the article would be "top heavy" with a longer lead. I'll just put it in my notes for tomorrow, it's too late for me to think right now.
General
  • Learned something new here. Thanks! :)
  • Please do. I've "gone blind" on the article for the moment...
Early life
  • My usual errors, not combining words. Please correct. :)
-- Thanks! w.carter-Talk 21:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ( aka The one who hangs out at the Teahouse to unwind )
Hello CaroleHenson, (yes, it's in the middle of the night here, but my back is killing me so I thought a cup of tea and some edits might set me right.) To be honest, I was baffled when you started to edit while reviewing!! I thought your role was to just point and say: That is not good. Re-do this. What does this mean? Etc. And instead you were helping me?? :) And what a lot of work you put into making me understand! But as you may have noticed, I'm eager to learn and try and rather good at taking directions, so I don't mind at all if the gloves are off now. Just say what needs fixing and I come up with a way to do that. Best, w.carter-Talk 02:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

@W.carter: When I look at the difference between these two versions, I am quite impressed by the level of effort that you've spent improving the article. It's a really good chunk of work - and I personally know how exhausting it is to do that amount of work to an article that you've already put a lot of time into... and then get comments about more changes.
That said, I think it would be good to re-use the method you described to me, which I'm guessing is how you made the revisions to bring it to the next level: "To scan the text for "bad bits" I read it out loud, envisioning myself as a news presenter at the BBC reading the five o'clock news" when you're ready to revisit it. There's no hurry here. Based upon your copy editing to the John Bauer article I absolutely know you can do it!
My concern is introducing my style with suggestions, etc... when you have a great writing voice.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
minor edits--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder CaroleHenson. :) I'll let you know when I have tackled the things. Leade is expanded. You asked for a career highlight, I don't know how he saw it, but if I was an artist, selling a pic to Hammarsköld in the UN, would pretty much be it! Onwards and upwards, w.carter-Talk 03:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, great! Yes - that sounds like a pretty significant career highlight to me. In the meantime, I'm updating comments in the GA review template - it's a work-in-progress.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Alterations

Discussion

@CaroleHenson:Just to clear out most of the notes here, I have made alterations to the article according to the specific pointers mentioned in the review. This does not mean that I'm finished with cleaning it up, just that the first stage is done. The big difference between this article and the previous review is clear: I wrote JB myself after being more used to the WP, EJ was translated from SweWiki = not "my own" (won't be doing that again...), and my first major article. Comments to match the points in the review:

  • 1a. Fixed things pointed out. Will continue the search. Re-wrote "Elegant","Lo-.." and "puts". The tense is sometimes tricky since the things he did "Jolin painted" is past tense, but the paintings still exist so "they are in soft pastels" present tense. Most of the biographies are also written in the present tense as if the author was "reporting" his life while it happend = a trap.
  • 1b. Fixed mentioned. The hunt goes on.
  • 2a. Notes are fixed. [c][46] notes before ref is since the reader is most likely to look at the [] closest to the text, and it's more important to read the note that the ref.
  • Blogs and personal sites are replaced with solid refs. No original research is present as far as I know. Swedish language parameters are added. I tried to put English lang. par. in another article before, but those were removed by a Bot as redundant.
  • 3a. Added: "Jolin's style deviates from that of the traditional Expressionists in that he simplifies his motifs in an almost primitive way, painting an imagined reality rather than raw emotions." Primitive=naïve. Not going to explain "Expressionists", that is another article.
  • 6a. Pictures are very tricky since all of his paintings are owned by someone. At the time Pilg88 handled the upload and copyright. Because of the lack of pics of his works I added other related to him and his surroundings/inspiration. In one of the books there are pics of paintings from 1914 and earlier, that's a century ago, I'm guessing these may be scanned and used because of their age. Not sure though.
  • 6b. Fixed.

As to other notes: Aunt is fixed, lead expanded, styles are being capitalized. I think that's it for now. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 14:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, W.carter! As it's still a work-in-progress, I'll wait to look at the edits, rather than disturb your process. Yep, the tense does get tricky - I made a mistake myself and had to strike out something that was on the review that absolutely should be present tense. Regarding the language parameter, I found the same thing when I added that for the Ester Ellqvist article - I thought it would be nice to distinguish English/Swedish sources from one another, but I guess that thinking is that since this is the English WP, sources are assumed to be in English unless noted otherwise.
I like the way that you describe how he combined naive/Expressionism for his personal style - yep, you're right no need to go into explanations of the movements in any depth beyond how he used the aspects of the movement to create (sorry to be redundant) his personal style.
Regarding pictures, based upon the agreement with the US in 1923, that would be my assumption to. But, like you say - this is tricky.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The pics all have valid licenses (or they did, but I don't think any have been added since I went through them) either as PD or as NFCC. If there are any issues please let me know.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, great! I just saw this - it looks like we're good per #Works by Jolin.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:Right! I've corrected, tweaked and re-written as much as I can find, so I think it's time for you to step in and see what you make of it. Glad that the pics got sorted out ok. Btw, have you noticed that there is a "Timeline for Einar Jolin's life" at the bottom of the article. I don't know if that is also on review. I just saw one at another article and thought it was fun to try it out here as well. Have a read-through and just tell me what I've missed. :) Cheers, w.carter-Talk 21:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, great! I have seen that you've been working hard - I'll take a look. Yes, I had seen the timeline, like it, and was wondering myself to what extent I'm responsible for reviewing the content for editing, accuracy, etc. Very nice idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Better than it may seem

Discussion
  • After another read-through of the article with the changes to the intro and a few other tweaks, I saw that the content was often written very well (better than me on my best days).
  • I added several things to watch out for in the review template, rather than finding each instance of the type of issue.
  • I might be wrong about needing to add "language" to all the references, since most of the references are Swedish. There might be a template or other solution that covers this rather than having to update all citations. Any input on this is appreciated!

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:No trouble updating the refs. I have this very nice script! :) w.carter-Talk 14:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Works of art by Jolin

Discussion

For the GA Review, section 6a deals with copyright status of images: "images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content"

My comments thus far are:

This is not a topic that I'm extremely aware of... I just know that when I've worked on articles I can place one justified fair-use image on an article - but only one and only if there is no copyright free image available.

Does anyone have any insight into the images in the two bullets?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please also see Talk:Einar_Jolin/Archive_1#...and if the gods are smiling upon you, it will succeed. and Talk:Einar_Jolin/Archive_1#Copyright and paintings.
Based on the comments in the "Copyright and paintings" and above info, it would seem that the painting from 1915 is likely ok - in which case I would think the licensing information for the painting should be updated. It would be good to get this verified - and update the licensing info, if appropriate.
Regarding the fair-use image, I'm less confident based upon my (albeit not the best) understanding of Fair-use. It's discussed towards the end of this: Talk:Einar_Jolin/Archive_1#...and if the gods are smiling upon you, it will succeed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Reworded 1st question.

I posted a request for assistance at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyright question: 1915 Swedish painting / 1938 "fair use" Swedish painting.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment on the 1938 image from an NFC standpoint: there's no absolute restriction on having more than one example of an artist's work on their page however, if there are already other examples (and free ones to boot if the claim on the 1918 is true), then there needs to be strong demonstration of contextual significance (eg NFCC#8) to include. This is nearly always for the case of paintings the discussion by sources of a specific painting and commenting on it. Judging by the text present in the article, describing the nature of these scenery paintings, there's definitely room for a second painting image, but I'm not sure if that exact 1938 one is the right one. There is another painting specifically mentioned by name which would be a better candidate. But perhaps the given example could also be improved on. Needless to say, you can have a second painting image there, there's no absolutely restriction on it, just make sure it's justified by NFCC. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem:Great! I'll let W.carter and others consider what image to use.
In the meantime, one of the criteria for the GA is that the images have the proper licensing tags. Do you mind looking at that? I was a little confused. And, do you have an opinion about moving the 1915 painting to commons? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot 100% confirm the legal nature of the 1915 one , but the logic seems reasonable with other cases where, because we're storing things on US soil, we use US's definitions of PD and the like. Assumping this is true, both images have all the necessary elements and licenses for use here. (both have a license tag, and the NFC one has the rationale) --MASEM (t) 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
@Masem:@CaroleHenson:I think it's best if we just keep the 1938 pic and I adjust the text accordingly. It has proved stable during many months. By sheer luck it is actually more appropriate than the ones mentioned in the text. As for the 1915 pic. It may be relevant to point out that it is owned by Malmö Museum, a museum that took part in the Category:Google Art Project works in Malmö Konstmuseum. No picture of it was taken during the drive though. w.carter-Talk 17:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That's fine - I think the text is mostly all the way there that one example of these cityscape paintings would be easily justified, it would be better to have mention of the specific 1938 one in the text backed by a source. I'm definitely not seeing a super major issue that will prevent GA from happening here in regards to images. --MASEM (t) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)  Done w.carter-Talk 17:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]

@Masem:@W.carter:Wonderful, regarding licensing!
Sounds good, re: file use and adding the museum
This was so much easier to resolve than I expected!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Next...

Discussion

Your edits are particularly good and have resulted in a fuller understanding of Jolin and his work. Now, comments are generally minor copy edits or requests for context or clarity.

  • Intro
    • 3rd paragraph - comma between Mediterranean Sea and especially --Fixed
    • UN building-->United Nations building --Fixed
  • Early life
    • Regarding: "Jolin loved his house and for his indoor paintings he often selected his props from things in the house – Gustavian and Empire style furniture, Chinese embroideries and East Indian tableware." Is the point that Jolin's house was decorated in exotic furnishings (great examples) that he liked to feature in his paintings? Perhaps a bit of tweaking that puts "loved his house" into focus and reduces the number of uses of "he/his" would be good. --Fixed
    • The wikilink for Chinese embroideries is Chinese embroidery. --Fixed
    • Regarding the quote: "The most amazing of them all was of course Isaac who had longer and more raven hair than anybody else and a fluttering violet scarf. I had not yet beheld such a creature." I'm left wondering: Why was he "of course" the most amazing of them all? What does it meant that he had "not yet beheld such a creature"? These seem like bold and poetic statements.
--?? Yes it is a rather unusual sentence, but it is an exact quote from Jolin. It starts with: "Jolin described the pupils at the school as" and then the quote are his words. I did not know that quotes from a person had to be explained? I don't know exactly what Jolin implied when he said that. I have added a ":" to make it more obvious that it is a quote. And again, I did not write this text, I translated it. Obviously I had to make many, many alterations to the text in the translation, but I tried to stay true to the original edtitor. I kept this sentence since just because it is a way of getting some colorful description into the text without violating the MOS. Thoughts?
Yep, I get your point about quotes not needing to be explained, but aren't they usually added to make a point or add context? If it's ok with you I'm going to follow the "be bold" part of the guidance for reviewers and research this and if something can be found, great. If not, let it go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Why did the school close in 1908 (money? other?)
--I have no idea. That info is simply not available to me. There are some indications that the school was just supposed to be in operation for a number of years and cease to be when the contract ran out, but not solid enough facts to be put in the text. Is this really important? I mean "shit happens" and we don't have to explain it all.
  • Paris
    • For "Paris and its art community" - was there something about Paris aside the art community that was a motivating factor, or was it particularly its artists and schools?
--Seriously?? :) Jolin was 18, had money from his parents who were far away in Sweden and lots of friends his age... I can think of a number of things that would be appealing about Paris. :) It was THE place to be for these guys! They ate, drank, slept around with "Les Belles de nuit", went to shows, admired the vistas, went exploring the city, sat at cafés, etc. in a way they had never done before in Sweden. I have listened to interviews with Jolin (primary source, not to be included) were he speaks of the time in Paris, and even if the WP is not censored, I think we can skip that here in his biography. There is a photo of the Young Ones (read: the Wild Ones) outside a café (including Isaac in scarf and slouch hat) available if you think one should be added to the article. --- I have replaced the original with "for the vibrant life in Paris and its art community. I hope it is not too "peacocky."
This got blown out of proportion in my wordy effort to not suggest... I just meant a minor tweak.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding "Carl Palme knew Henri Matisse,[18] and was now looking for a suitable location for the new Matisse Academy." Is Palme or Matisse looking for the suitable location? --Typo. Clarified in the text.
    • I'm not clear about the first three sentences in the 2nd paragraph. For instance, since he's going to school, I would expect that it "proved educational for him..." is the point that he explored new movements, other? If it's a lead in to the coming sentences, in which case it might be good to get directly to the points about his transformation / experience. I question the 2nd sentence. In the third sentence I'm intrigued by natural/spontaneous speed. What does "natural speed" as a distinction from "spontaneous speed" mean? (Is it the differences between painting in a comfortable, natural rhythm versus with more emotion? without forethought? as a stream of consciousness?)
--Again, not my text, just translated (you should have seen the text before I pruned it... not pretty... ) I have clarified what is implied in the original Swedish text. As to brushwork: "spontaneous speed"=without having to think about it, "natural"=being ok with working that way. I have rephrased it for clarity.
  • Return to Stockholm
    • Didn't the group become known as the Young Ones in 1909? --No, if you read the text in the first section it states that they "... would become known as... " They were not called "the Young Ones" or "The Men of 1909" until 1914. I have added "later" in the text for clarification.
Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Why was his residence in 1914 called the "Scandalous House"? Sexuality? Radical politics???
--?? But it IS explained why in the Note. Isn't that enough? What notes are for. There is even a pic of it showing just how tall and obstructive it is.
Sorry, I missed that. You absolutely did a good job with that.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Regarding the sale of paintings: please add a comma before the "as at this" phrase. --Typo. Fixed.
    • What do you think about removing or slightly rewording the portion: "was able to show off his success,"? --Fixed
    • I don't understand this: "Jolin enjoyed life in the Danish capital since the Danish way of socializing and the varied company appealed to him" --Danes are generally more easygoing and less strict than Swedes. I have reworded that section.

...stopping for the moment. Again, great job providing insight into who Jolin is. Little touches can make a huge impact, like the way you reworded the sentence about painting mediums to: "He mainly worked in oils and watercolors, using delicate brush strokes and light colors." It's lovely. I can visualize what his finished work might look like and how he worked. That's just one example of the ways in which you've taken what might be considered nitpicky comments and returned brilliant changes.

Of the two types of issues, I'm not worried about minor copy edits like wikilinks, punctuation, spelling abbreviations, etc... and going forward I can pick those up (it seems silly because it takes me longer to type about it than fix it and on the whole you're doing a good job there).

But if you could read through the rest of the article for any places where the reader might be left hanging, that would be great. For instance, clarifying unexplained phrases that might wiktionary:pique the readers interest, or where the content could be a little clearer. It seems that the remainder of the article does not have areas needing clarification, but a double-check would be good.

It seems like there's some minor grammatical and copy edit issues in the reaminder of the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson:Hi! I have left my comments in italic in the previous post, it's easier to read that way. I will take a look again at the rest of the text when I get home tonight. When all the alterations here are done I'm thinking of removing the "translated from" box at the talk page. The article does not in any way resemble the original Swedish article. And I have vowed to never , ever, ever, translate an article again! I am always held responsible for someone else's text, fact or choice of words. And at the Wikipedia they DO shoot the messenger. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 11:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@W.carter: Oh, my, for what I have done that makes you feel that I'm "shooting the messenger" I sincerely apologize. If I understand correctly, it seems that the main point is that you're being asked to reword or clarify things that you don't know or don't consider important in the greater context of the article. I absolutely goes against my intention to "shoot" the messenger and if there's any other feedback for what I can do differently - I want to hear it so my behavior or practices are in synch with my intention. I also know that I bring up things that other editors / reviewers might not. Obviously, it seems like I could use some coaching on approach, because you are such a rare person to work with that has both a remarkable cooperative, positive approach with others + a true desire to make good articles. I will outreach to a GA mentor about what I've done here for suggestions.
Regarding some of the clarifications I was talking about - some of them were really about simple editing - and I think if I had done that instead of trying to explain why in at least a couple of places, this would have gone smoother. Regarding the ones asking for clarification it was because a statement left an open question in my mind. For what it's worth, I did a recent clean-up / rewrite of an article that was riddled with "clarify" - "who" - "why" etc tags, which I absolutely know affected my approach here.
I'm going to make some copy edits and research on the couple of unknowns. We're so close here to have this situation go south. I'm not sure that I want to apologize for an intention to make a good article, but I absolutely regret that you felt that I shot the messenger.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:Absolutely no need to apologize!! This time it is I who should apologize for my poor choice of words. I think we're both getting a bit tiered due to this much back and forward. It was just a figure of speech. What I meant with it is that it is so much easier to explain or defend a text that you have written yourself and know every intention and meaning of. In my professional life I do a lot of translations (English to Swedish, not the other way around as is apparent) and in this capacity I am never held accounted for the content of the text itself, I'm just a translator, a messenger. But here at the WP I have to stand by every word I write, be it mine or someone else's, there is no difference. That is why this is so weird for me. There were never any trouble at JB, since I wrote all of that myself and could stand by every word. This here is just getting jumbled and that is why I will not make any more direct translations. Better to absorb info and write it myself. Hope that this clears up things a bit. Also, I know that I tend to go a bit "wild" on talk pages since I use a very restrained language in the articles. Bad habit, I know. :-/
You are doing an outstanding job in getting this article right, you just happened to be here when some pent up tension from some old discussions over translated texts got released, sorry about that! I'll just read and continue to tweak. :) All the best, w.carter-Talk 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@W.carter: Thanks for your response. The going back-and-forth is tiring; it might be good for me to take one day off on the review and come back with a refreshed perspective. I did post a comment on a GA reviewer's talk page: the process will likely be smoother for any GA review if I make tweaks in approach and/or the degree to which I pursue my own mental questions (I'm a very naturally inquisitive person - starting at 4 or 5 years of age with sociological and philosophical discussions with my father). Thanks for your comments and kind words.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:Slowing things down a bit sounds like a good plan for both of us. We've done a ton of work with two GA reviews in a very short time, and with me be still being a bit slow to get all the nuances at the WP, getting some air and a fresh perspective is always good. Being inquisitive is not a bad thing at all :) , it's just that some of the finer details of the questions do get lost when you don't see the face or hear the voice of the one you are having the conversation with. Words are always taken far too literary if one is not familiar with each other's tone. (Does that sentence make sense?)

I'll stick to the previous plan and continue to hunt down things to correct, while you do something fun for a while. And if you come across some pics that needs fixing please send them my way. Working with things that does not involve word is relaxing for me. :) See you in a day or so! Best, w.carter-Talk 16:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, sounds like a plan. Yes, I think I understand what you mean, without hand-gestures, facial expressions, and and my beloved pictures or diagrams. ;) Great point!
No need to respond: If you're interested in a mental break and you're not already familiar with the story, at one point I thought about truce, which led me to "Christmas truce" of 1914. It's unrelated to our topic - but one of my top 5 favorite stories of all time.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:And once again there is the Synchronicity. :) I know the story very well. Some of my great-great-great-relatives were part of it. Have a rest now. Ciao! w.carter-Talk 17:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

English sources and further reading

Discussion

Realizing that Jolin had exhibitions in the states, I've checked around for English sources and unlike Bauer, there's quite a number of English sources that should be added... if nothing else, to further reading section. A Google book query for books with preview capability include these books.

Input is helpful, but I would think that at least the name number of English books as Swedish books for further reading would be good. There are five Swedish language books in further reading right now.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I also posted this at Good article help#Einar Jolin.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not realize that there were books in other languages about him. I'll weed out the top books in English and list them in the Further Reading section when I get home tonight. No need to include books that just mentions "a picture on the wall by Einar Jolin". Best, w.carter-Talk 11:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Of course, agreed, about only adding sources that really do have something meaningful to add - and if there's less than 5 books that meet that criteria, that's fine. The count was just my arbitrary thought - not based upon a guideline anyway.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@CaroleHenson:I added three books to the Further reading section. The rest were just of the "a picture on the wall"-kind or encyclopedias. I looked at the rest of the text, and that little rush of adrenaline I got earlier seemed to have cleared my head since I saw so many more of my mistakes all off a sudden. :) Thanks! I think I'll have to let it go for now. Just tell me what new (or old) things you find on your next read-through. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@W.carter:Great work!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Einar_Jolin/Archive_1&oldid=1072573676"