Talk:Vädersolstavlan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Vädersolstavlan has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 24, 2007.
WikiProject Sweden The article on Vädersolstavlan is supported by WikiProject Sweden, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA Class: This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.


I've spent a few weeks gathering information about this painting. Arguably, the article is to long, and, obviously, it needs a lot of clean-up. I saved it as it is now mostly because editing it became circumstantial. I hope to return to it within soon.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I found this article quite fascinating and informative. Thank you for uploading all of this information. However, I do not think this article is too long, and should not be shortened. Doing so would surely eliminate useful information. User:Notecardforfree 11:21, 24 May 2007 (PST)
This article is remarkably thorough and well-researched. Deleting anything for the sake of brevity would be a shame. Thebunsk 19:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK and thanks! I still hope to return to it a tweak parts of it, however. For example, the Prelude section is longer than needed while the last sentence in the Events section could very well be expanded considerably.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read the article and as a layman in the area I find it excellent and very informative. Please, don't shorten it just to make it shorter ... Tpl (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move to English title?

I also found the article very comprehensive. Is it the most complete treatment of the subject in English? I would have the page moved to The Sundog Painting or something along these lines, as we are supposed to use English titles (e.g., "Cardsharps" rather than "I bari"). It's hard for a non-Swede to remember the word "Vädersolstavlan", let alone to type it in the browser. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Googling on "Sundog Painting" gives no related matches, so, an English translation should not be used here.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's because the painting is sort of obscure outside Sweden. Additionally, check WP:GOOGLEHITS. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Google hits are not evidences. However, I've never seen anyone refer to the painting using the English name, so it simply doesn't make sense. A redir could possibly be suitable. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) makes it, IMHO, obvious the Swedish name should be used as there is no established English name for the painting.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:IDONTKNOWIT? ;) --Ghirla-трёп- 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Vädersolstavlan" is a proper name given the painting centuries after it was produced. Mona Lisa is not translated to "Little Miss Lisa" or anything similar. There is simply no reason to invent English names just for the sake of having English names on articles. Having a Swedish title is not important to me, but, again, giving the article an English name makes no sense. A simple redirect from "The Sun Dog Painting" and an explanation of the name in the article should be sufficient.
There is no simple answer to the proposal: I wrote German Church, Stockholm which, when featured as a DYK, was presented as Tyska Kyrkan. Similarly, English guides to Stockholm prefer Gamla stan to Stockholm Old Town. The Swedish habit of gluing words together obviously makes Swedish names hard to interpret by non-Swedes, but renaming Västerlånggatan, Storkyrkobrinken, or Trädgårdstvärgränd for the sake of readability would be hilarious.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit questions

Some questions:

  • Are both the cathedral and the castle rendered in descriptive perspective? I would think so, but the current wording doesn't actually say it.
  • Does 'left unpainted around the painting' mean that there is an unpainted border around the face of the painting? Perhaps this should be moved to the next para, it seems a bit out of place in its current setting.
  • 'A side effect of the a la prima technique is the horizon leaning to the right': Does this just mean that it was painted straight on and the artist didn't get it level? Is there any particular reason why it leans to the right? (Right-handed artist?)
  • Roentgen analysis - the wikilink goes to a disambiguation page. Is this another way of saying X-rays? If so, I suggest that X-ray is more widely understood.

I'll be back with more! I'm enjoying the article, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting!
• Yes both the cathedral and the castle are rendered in a descriptive perspective. I'm not sure how to reword it better.
• Yes, the border of the panel is left unpainted, and, yes, it should probably move down.
• No, not because of any "handedness" at all, simply because he didn't plan his work, he just painted "straight on" detail by detail.
• Yes, X-ray is probably what I should have called it.
Again, thanks and keep asking (and please let me know if you what me to change anything or if you prefer that I just wait to avoid edit conflicts)
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll have a go at playing with the above points, and let you correct me if I get it wrong! ;-) Apologies for the slow progress, but I'm fitting this in around other things. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, btw: what is a 'deal'? From context I can see that it is like a short plank, but is this the normal English language term for it? I've not heard it before (which doesn't mean much - I'm not an art historian!). If there is a more commonly used, but still accurate word, then perhaps it should be used. 4u1e (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks just great, thanks a lot! And please take your time, no hurry.
A deal is a plank made of softwood (which means it is easy to shape). I just looked the word up in a dictionary, I've no idea if it is a 'normal' English word in any context.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more questions:

  • Is there a reason why it is the 'so-called' Danube school? 'So-called' suggests that the school is a false category, or that there is debate over its legitimacy. I couldn't see anything at Danube School to suggest that.
  • '- an apocalyptic scene derived from the Bible' Does this refer to Altdorfer's illustrations to Revelations, or to the Vädersolstavlan?
  • 'Just as in the Swedish painting, the panoramic view is not depicting a panorama actually viewed, but rather reality as known' - I know exactly what you mean, but at the same time, I'm not sure this is clear. Is there any trade jargon for this effect that can be linked?
  • 'is in the Swedish painting substituted by the 17th century inscription' This needs to be recast slightly, because we haven't at this point encountered the inscription! Does this mean that the function of the frame is provided by the inscription, or that there used to be a frame, and that the inscription replaced it? 4u1e (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The 'so-called' is just because (to my knowledge) they are called Danube School by art historians who talk about their style rather than because they formed a grouping or literally a school. In this context this is not important, so the 'so-called' can be scrapped.
  • It was supposed to refer to Erhard Altdorfer's work Revelation to John.
  • Hmmm, I don't know of any such jargon. Let me have a look around.
  • Hmmm again, that's a good point. Maybe it should be changed to "a device which appears in many other German Renaissance battle scenes, and in the Swedish painting was used in the form of an inscription added in the 17th century."
Again thanks
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
When I think about it, the inscription added in the 17th century is Baroque and has very little to do with the Danube School, so maybe this should be left out completely.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The section has been reworded. I think these issues are fixed by now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

With apologies for the break over the weekend (I'm repairing a suspended wooden floor in my flat - there's always more work than you think!):

  • UK or US English? We have both at present.
  • "Let them have the Holy Scripture in their proper language" Is this an official translation, or your own? I onlyl ask because I assume 'proper' is used in the sense of 'their own' here.
  • Stamps: An inland stamp is for use within Sweden? And what is a 10 kronor stamp used for?
  • When had "The political relation between Sweden and Denmark ... been tense for well over a century" Early C15th?
  • Is 'Northern Europe' the normal term for Scandanavia, Denmark, Iceland and Greenland? To me it would also include Germany, Holland etc - but obviously that's just my view.
  • " Archbishop of Uppsala Gustavus Trolle (1488-1535), who sought revenge for having been ill-treated" By whom?
Apologies? :) I'm glad you are helping me at all. And good luck with your apartment.
  • Well, should be UK English, that is I've set the spell-checker in Firefox to UK.
  • Yes, 'proper' here is only supposed to mean 'their own', not 'politically correct' or whatever.
  • 'Inland' was the translation I found for Inrikes (i,e, "within the kingdom". The opposite is utrikes). The inland stamp does not have a fix value, it just says Inrikes. The 10 kr stamp, however, does not explicitly say it is for foreign destinations. (My guess is that) it can be used for various purposes, including sending letters abroad.
  • Yes, the Kalmar Union lasted c. 1400-1520.
  • In Sweden, Northern Europe would also include Germany etc. the Kalmar Union, except Scandinavia, also included parts of modern Germany. So, no, in this context at least the article should say Northern Europe and not Scandinavia.
  • Trolle had been disposed as a bishop (among other things) by nobles and burghers in Stockholm who supported the Swedish king. Therefore Trolle supported the Danish king Christian and was reinserted as a bishop by him just before the Stockholm Bloodbath.
Again, thanks for copyediting. Feel no obligations, take your time.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a copyedit comment, but I would suggest cutting back the history section by a third to a half in length, by summarising and reference to the articles History of Sweden (800-1521),History of Sweden (1523–1611), Stockholm Bloodbath, Christian II of Denmark and Gustav I of Sweden. You might want to transfer some of your account here out into those articles, in fact, since they are sometimes less detailed than this one.
  • Why are priests committing adultery not banned? I've assumed that this means 'Why are priests committing adultery not excommunicated (since *anyone* committing adultery is 'banned' in all(?) flavours of Christianity. The wording still puzzles me though - if a priest is not allowed to marry, he can't commit adultery (i.e. having sex outside his marriage). He could commit the sin of fornication, I think. Any suggestions? This may all be too much detail, again. 4u1e (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the history could be shortened considerably. Do you want me to do it?
Yes, fornication is a better word (I didn't know it existed).
Again, thanks.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you agree, I suggest that it would be better if you shortened it, since you know more about the topic than I do! Try to focus on the minimum needed for an understanding of the history of the painting. As I say, the longer version need not be lost, perhaps it can move to one of the other articles. Am I right about excommunication for priests? 4u1e (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Y Done History section is shortened by now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Here we go again:

  • Under 'Events' we have 'master of the mint Anders Hansson', 'Mint Master Hans Hansson' and 'Andreas Hansson': are any of these actually the same person? Or is it just a very common surname (and job!) 4u1e (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Under 'Censorship' Is there anything else to say about the report from the 1590s? The para feels wrong as it moves on directly to a much more detailed account of the 1608 version. 4u1e (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome back again
I changed Andreas to Anders, just a typo I guess. At the moment I can't remember anything more about the 1590 report. I'll take a walk to the library to see if my reference has anything more to say about it.
Thanks for copyediting.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at my sources again and added some more on the report from the 1590s. Sadly nothing much can be said about it, at least not using the references I have.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You'll be glad to hear that the floor is now finished! More stuff:

  • "As the two square and crenellated towers in the painting are depicted much as they appear on a copperplate of Stockholm produced by Frantz Hogenberg around 1560-1570, the painting thus probably renders this part of the castle as it appeared following the enlargement completed in the 1580s" I may just not be properly awake yet (I should probably go and get some coffee!), but I don't follow the logic here. The towers appear as they were drawn in 1560/1570, so they must represent them as they were after changes from the 1580s?! 4u1e (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Helgeandsholmen looking west.
Helgeandsholmen looking west.
Good morning! Yes a cup of coffee is always right.
  1. I reworded some of your edit on Helgeandsholmen. Just to explain I added a photo here. Today Helgeandsholmen is crossed by three bridges: Norrbro in the foreground, Stallbron left background, and Riksbron right background. In the Middle Ages, the one and only bridge was stretching diagonally across Helgeandsholmen from where Stallbron is today to the square Gustav Adolfs torg (northern end of Norrbro). Visible in the painting is the northern end of this medieval structure, now gone.
  2. In the painting the palace is rendered as under construction, i.e. before the works were completed in the 1580s.
As always, thanks a lot for your work and time
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No trouble. So the phrase "the painting thus probably renders this part of the castle as it appeared following the enlargement completed in the 1580s" is wrong then? (emphasis mine) 4u1e (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. To be meticulous, the palace was enlarged, but in the 1670s, before completion, works halted. Then Hogenberg produced the engravings of Stockholm showing the enlargement still under construction (later used by Elbfas to recreate the destroyed parts of the painting). Then the enlargement was finally completed in the 1680s. Anyway, I guess this will be more clear by just replacing following by before.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely, in my book. 4u1e (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done I reworded the sentence. Should be clear by now. / Mats Halldin (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Other than that last point I think I'm done. I don't know if it's useful, but a few general points might be useful:

  • Your English is better than you think it is. I couldn't conceive of writing an article like this in French (my only foreign language), not even when I was living and studying there. The main recurring problems seem to be the ordering of words and phrases in sentences (with a preference for what I guess is the normal Swedish order) and using the wrong 'connecting' words in phrases like 'used by', 'attributed to' etc. I'm sure there's a technical term for those words, but I have no idea what it is! You also write quite 'long', which is really a style thing, rather than necessarily being good or bad. Be prepared to defend this where you think it is worthwhile!
  • The US vs UK thing wasn't actually a problem at all. You've used -ize endings, but that is a valid UK usage, although some will complain about it.
  • I think this is a very good article. I should push for GA and then FA, if I were you. If you do so, things you might need to work on include more solid references for statements like "as the 1630s replica has proven to be an accurate copy of the lost original" and the layout of the pictures. There's a lot of white space showing in my browser (Firefox on Windows XP, screen resolution of 1280x1024.
  • My personal opinion is that the sections on the Parhelion and Medieval Stockholm are a valuable addition and should be retained. The history section is necessary to give context to the painting as well.

I've enjoyed looking at this article. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• :) My English certainly can't be worse than I imagine it to be. Thanks! I've been meditating over your edits and will most likely return to your proposals above. Since I produced this article I've tried to be more brief and use shorter sentences. (I guess that's what you mean by 'long'.)
It is, but don't lose all of the long sentences, it's good to have variety.
• Thanks, I think I will attempt a GA when I solved the layout problems still present, and yes, I'll try to find some more refs where needed. Someone proposed the Parhelion and Medieval Stockholm sections should be moved to the top of the article - would you agree?
Erm, I'm tempted that way, but this is an article about the picture after all. On balance I tentatively say no. 4u1e (talk)
Encore une fois, merci beaucoup!
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
De rien. ;-) 4u1e (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

A couple of minor points as I'm reading through. I figured out that the Storkyrkan was the cathedral, but can this be mentioned in the Painting section? Also, a link to the castle there, if we have an article, would be good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing and thanks for pointing this out to me. I can't even figure out why this slipped my mind. Storkyrkan is the cathedral today, but didn't become a cathedral until the mid 20th century -- during the 16th century it was "just" a church. I'll replaced all the "cathedral" in the article with "church".
You're not the first to mention all the Storkyrkan/"the church"/"the cathedral" etc as confusing to sort out. When you live in Stockholm and understand Swedish it is obvious this is the same building. I am probably to blind to see if there are more related problems in the article. Please let me know if anything is unclear.
Thanks again.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick review of the article as I am trying to improve my skills as well. One thing that I noticed small though it is was for example reference 7 and 16 were "inside" the quotation marks, whilst the majority were correctly "outside" them. A small point but wikipedia does have a format that is part of GA. Take a look at running JS: fixing MoS and see what you think? I will say that I have always wanted to go to the city now I might show this to my partner in the hope I can convenience them! Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say. What is wrong with refs 7 and 16? What quotation marks?
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Compare:
The king's interpretation of the phenomenon, however, was that no significant change was presaged, as the "six or eight sun dogs on a circle around the true sun, have apparently disappeared, and the true natural sun has remained itself"<ref name="quote-Vasa-1">...</ref>.
and
the world had become so wicked that it was irrevocably doomed.<ref name="St-Erik-Hermelin" />
In the first one, the <ref>...</ref> comes before the period. In the second it comes after the period. A minor point that AndyZ's bot will pick up I think. Anyway, I changed them now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, now I get it! Thanks for pointing it out. I'll try to get better at such details.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read this again. I do have a few very minor quibbles about wording in some places, but I'll make the changes myself. I am quite satisfied that this meets the good article criteria on every level. I picked this just simply it was overdue for reviewing, but I have really enjoyed reading it. Outstanding work by all concerned. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those words and for reviewing. And, as always, let me know if there anything needing clarifying -- I'll be around. I rewrote the Parhelion section after the peer review above. So there might be some grammar problems there.
/ Raven in Orbit (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for not making the reference layout point clearly enough and thanks to Angusmclellan for taking the time to clarify it. Well done on the GA, a good article. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)