This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
A note here "The epistle was written before William Blake's The Sick Rose, which was published in 1794." and see also link at that article needs a citation. ~ cygnis insignis 15:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to cite it here. I've never heard of 'See also' items with citations, it's just "here's a similar item you may find interesting". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That note cites the primary source, not one that suggests a notable fact. ~ cygnis insignis 13:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the note and cite. ~ cygnis insignis 13:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The composition is only sourced as dated to 14 November 1771, not written on that date
It was certainly written on that date in 1771 as the manuscript survives.
Are you sure punctuation should be inside quotation marks for the subtitle?
I'd prefer to follow the source but we can try it without.
The radical and innovative part should be the last sentence of the lead, as this is about critical commentary
reordered.
"It details the" → "Värm mer Öl och Bröd details the" per this being a new para
No, that would require every paragraph about the song to begin in that way, but there is no such rule.
Refs should not be in the lead when all this info is already sourced in the body
Removed, except for the one for the word "famous", which will be challenged unless visibly and directly cited. Actually the second one is a direct quotation and I had cited it for that exact reason; we can risk it without.
Maybe the English translation should be in brackets and why is there a comma before it, also shouldn't one be before the line itself?
Repunctuated, and no, there shouldn't be a comma before the line.
"is unusual, too, in being" → "is unusual, in being"
Shouldn't you write No. before the numbers of the epistles?
Done, it's marginal.
"to 14 (the pattern recurring in epistle 59, "Hurra Courage, Bagage! God dag Bröder!", also)." → "to 14, as well as the pattern recurring in epistle 59, "Hurra Courage, Bagage! God dag Bröder!"" (exclamation mark can be used to close a sentence in this context)
Remove wikilink on childbirth in prose; this has already been done in the previous section
Done.
"In his view," → "In Lindé's view,"
Done.
"and gripping way."" → "and gripping way"." per MOS:QUOTE
No, when a quote is from the end of a sentence the punctuation is included.
That only applies when a full sentence is quoted; read through the guideline properly. --K. Peake 06:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with Ulla in" → "with Ulla Winblad in" because she is not a real person
Done.
"new little Movitz."" → "new little Movitz"."
No, when a quote is from the end of a sentence the punctuation is included. Fixed.
Why is Epistles capitalised only in the second para?
Lower case throughout, except when the full title is given.
"in the twentieth century," → "in the 20th century," per MOS:NUM
Done.
Third para and img look good!
Noted.
[1] should solely be at the end of the sentence
No, it's to protect the adjective "famous" by declaring specifically that this is a direct quotation, and must be immediately adjacent to have any chance of being noticed.
Again, maybe the English translation should be in brackets and why is there a comma before it, also shouldn't one be before the line itself?
Chiswick Chap This looks good, apart from the MOS:QUOTE issues that I still explained need fixing in further detail above. --K. Peake 06:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. If any more tiny tweaks needed, feel free to fix them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓Pass time, this all looks good now! --K. Peake 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold until all of the issues are fixed after this quick review! --K. Peake 08:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
