Talk:Swedish literature/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Swedish literature. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Norwegian literature

Lots of improvement going on now at Norwegian literature, we might want to schedule this article for some upgrading too and maybe get a template. We also might want to create a Scandinavian literature article to keep track of all this stuff :) Haukur 22:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Scandinavian literature has begun. Come on over and help out... Williamborg 02:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay :) Haukur 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Needs more mention:

Fred-Chess 09:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed

I have today removed one section about Latin works , and one section about spiritual literature in the 18th century, since these weren't Swedish language literature. Fred-Chess 21:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Some comments

I saw that you requested a review of this article, so I read it through and gave it a copyedit, running an English eye over it (feel free to revert me where you disagree).

Apart from Strindberg, I knew little about the subject matter, and so I read the article with great interest. It is certainly very full; in terms of content and referencing it obviously represents very thorough work, and on those grounds it has the makings of a quality article. Where it falls down, perhaps inevitably, is in the prose, which is a little stiff and unidiomatic, in my opinion. I've copyedited some individual words and phrases, though I couldn't quite work out what was meant by:

enlived
naturesque
transisted

so I left them alone. I also found the following a little inscrutable

The 20th century in literature cannot be said to have begun in the 1900. In fact, the poets of the 90s had their strongest support in the early 1900s.

I took this to mean that the 20th century in literature didn't really begin until after the first decade of the century, but I wasn't sure, and so I left it alone.

Although I've corrected some individual words, there are longer passages that don't read as clearly and fluently as they could, in my opinion. I'm always willing to help, though you may feel I've already interfered too much.

But, once again, this is a substantial and informative article of good quality. Many congratulations.

(By the way, though I don't really know anything about Swedish literature, I have read a quite brilliant book by Tove Jansson (Finnish, but a Swedish writer) called "The Summer Book", one of her adult books. It made an impact in Britain when it was translated into English a few years ago. Here's a review of it: Lights on a String)

All the best. qp10qp 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you indeed.

With English level 3, this is the best I can write, and I'm not ashamed to admit that copyediting of my articles is usually necessary...

I'll address your questions shortly.

Fred-Chess 06:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a good article in the making. Lots of content, thoroughly sourced. This is exactly the kind of article Wikipedia needs. It's just that the English needs severe reworking. I'll try and do some copy-editing on it over the next few days. Cheers. --Folantin 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

GA

Hello, in my assessment, this meets the required criteria. One suggestion, merge or expand the short paragraphs. I would also recommend expanding any of the "main article" sections, with regard to each sub-subject's influence on Swedish literature as a whole. The Rök Runestone is especially interesting to me, but the coverage through out history is pretty good! =b d= DVD+ R/W 21:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions, again.

I'm confused by the first paragraph of the "16th and 17th century" section. It states that Swedish Reformation literature is "generally considered a step back culturally." I'm not certain what is being stepped back from. The law texts? The Swedish chronicles, not mentioned in this article but in its subarticle, "Early Swedish literature"? The character of Swedish literature during this time isn't made very clear, so I'm not really certain what's being compared. Was this poetry? Stage drama? History? Theology? Are the literary qualities of various types of law-texts being compared? Sorry to bother you all like this, but I'm still somewhat muddle-headed about these affairs after reading these associated articles. Thanks for your time, and good luck with the article. Geuiwogbil 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind at, I think it is fun. Keep in mind that I have written the bulk of this page so further work is likely necessary to establish complete NPOV. I think I have clarified the issue. / Fred-Chess 09:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I get it now. Geuiwogbil 13:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite get what the following sentence means: "With the advent of social democracy and large-scale strikes, the new winds were blowing in the direction of a working class reformation." It's the phrase "working class reformation" that puzzles me.

Also, shouldn't Gunnar Ekelöf get a mention in this article? He's one of only three Swedish poets I've ever heard of (the others are Bellman and Tranströmer). --Folantin 09:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize he was that well-known. Sure, I'll mention him. Thanks for the feedback. / Fred-Chess 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

A Good Article review has been opened concerning this page's status, with a multitude of concerns given, at WP:GA/R. Any involved editors might be helpful for the discussion. Homestarmy 21:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

W is missing

The picture which is said to contain the swedish alphabet suffers from the lack of the W letter. W is nowadays considered as a part of the swedish alphabet, and not as before just a variant of V. So please try to correct this.

I corrected it shortly after you mentioned it. / Fred-J 13:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Swedish literature/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 5, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The prose in clumsy in places and would benefit from a thorough copy-edit to improve clarity and readability. There are a few instances of weasel words. e.g. arguably; exceptional; cynical; - if these derive from sources they would be OK if directly attributed to the source author. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
I fixed two redirects using WP:CHECKLINKS. There are a large number of uncited statements, particularly in the latter part of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources):
Sources appear reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for seven days for copy-edit and referencing. Major contributors and projects are being notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, nothing has been done about these issues and seven days have passed so delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Then Swänske Argus/The Spectator

How exactly could Then Swänska Argus have been based on The Spectator when the former was first published in 1732 and the latter in 1828? 83.226.206.82 (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the link was wrong. I've fixed it. / Fred-J 18:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bremer

No Fredrika Bremer. Article is teh fail...

Came to the article trying to see if she was listed as the founder of the Swedish novel or just their domestic novel. Ain't listed at all. The woman whose works got the guys to go from considering adult women incompetent wards of their brothers to full rights including suffrage merits inclusion, all the more so since her works outsold everyone currently listed both within Sweden and abroad. That said, I'm not sure whether to list her with the Romantics or Realists or whether a new critical response has been formed towards her works apart from her biography appealing to modern feminists. — $Llywelyn II$ 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit had her. Any particular reason we're keeping the current version of the page if it was much better done in 2006? Whoever shunted the material into the subpages obviously didn't know what needs keeping and the process should probably just start over. — $Llywelyn II$ 02:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Swedish literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorisation

@Andejons: Regarding this revert. Please note that Category:Swedish literature is already categorised inside Category:Nordic literature. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. But even so, one should still treat all the countries equally.

Andejons (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)