Talk:Le Spectre de la rose

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Le Spectre de la rose article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

As of 28 June 2012, this article is a very good article. (compare to current).
This means the community feels this article is written very well.
You may see the vote that promoted the article here.

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Readability[change source]

A check using www.read-able.com gave the following results:

Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 68.8
Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 6.1
Gunning Fog Score 6.8
SMOG Index 6.7
Coleman Liau Index 10.5
Automated Readability Index 4.5

Good scores for a simple English text. --Peterdownunder (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[change source]

This makes too many links on the page which can be confusing to a reader.

You do not need to link many of the common words, especially if they are on the Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist. In the intro paragraphs there were some of these words linked including: minute, story, based, concept, kiss, dream, disappear, poem, window.
Do not use a complex word (even if linked) if a simple word will do. For example in the intro there is "witness" when the word "see" will be suitable, or armchair when chair is suitable.
Only link once. So the word choreography is linked in the intro, it does not need to be linked again in the article. There are many other examples.

--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links in the info box can be repeated in the article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't undrestand it[change source]

Why to have even Wikipedia's dictionary links for ordinary words? Wiktionary is too amateuric to be ever referenced.--Sunil of India (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what you mean. Personally, I find your statement absurd; how is Wiktionary "amateuric"? Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means it is low quality and unprofessional. I completely disagree. It may not have great coverage at the moment but the definitions are mostly very good. DJDunsie (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]