Talk:Le Spectre de la rose

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.

Readability

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

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

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)