`  ::Please don't assume bad faith here by calling me ``prejudiced`` and my comment ``absurd``. A request was made for GA review, and I am providing that. I was very clear that I liked the article. If I was prejudiced I would have done a lot more to this article than what I suggested. First off, I did not criticize Hjelmquist as a source. He may be perfectly fine, and I admitted that I did not know his work. The Swedish title alone does not inform me of what is in the source. It is, however, a secondary source, and the point was that the secondary sources cited here are quite old. They may be fine and good sources, but some of them do require more critical attention (like Grimm's work)...  + `