Talk:Le Spectre de la rose
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Le Spectre de la rose article. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
![]() |
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)
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)
- Links in the info box can be repeated in the article.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)