Talk:The Nutcracker

This article is a good article. This means the community feels it is written well.

Readability scores

from the Readability Test Tool

Readability Results This page has an average grade level of about 7. It should be easily understood by 12 to 13 year olds.

Readability Indices

• Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease 71
• Flesch Kincaid Grade Level 5.1
• Gunning Fog Score 5.9
• SMOG Index 5.9
• Coleman Liau Index 12
• Automated Readability Index 4.4

--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

GA proposal comments

My general comment is that the writing is not good enough, and a large part lacks in-line references.

Prose

Runing through the text is a confusion between talking about the creation of the original ballet, and about its performance today. Describing the libretto, or story-line is also a problem.

Introduction

1. Op. 71 is not part of the ballet's title, and should be deleted from the first sentence. I have checked this in two dance encyclopedias. As is, it confuses the dance with the music. The music is but one of four art-forms represented in the ballet.
2. The introduction should not deal with the story-line of the ballet at all. It is too detailed, and in this particular ballet is a special problem. Actually, it is difficult to improve on the enWP introduction, and the Simple version is much less clear [I am not saying the language could not be simplified]. Their choice of topics and arrangement for the introduction was very good.
3. Don't use a non-roman script, especially in an introduction. Obviously it can't be read by most users; so put it in a footnote if necessary. Actually, it's not necessary to know how the title is spelt in Russian, is it?

Story

1. The storyline of the ballet is quite unclear (this is well known, and commented on in all reference works). It might help to say that most of it is a dream sequence.
2. Please don't be amateurish about references: "This translation may be found in Roland John Wiley's book Tchaikovsky's Ballets on pages 333-337". This does not impress me, because it is an unwanted interruption into the flow of text. Use in-line references, and let the reader decide whether or not to divert attention from the main text.
3. Who is Drosselmeyer? He's not been introduced but pops up as if we know him. He's a magician, or something like that, a part played by a company's leading character dancer.
4. While on the 'flow of text' lets consider the left-ranging graphics. They can be, and are in Act 1, interferring with the visual flow of the text. Golden rule: text is primary, graphics are secondary.
5. The illustrations are of variable quality, too much so. I would cut the photograph of Act 1 right away.

Tchaikovsky

1. I applaud the sudden arrival of references! But you've imported a clumsy two-part system. IMO readers should not have to look in two separate places to piece together the reference information.
2. I don't like the sequence of very short sentences; it doesn't read well. If extra-long sentences are a trouble to readers (which they are), it doesn't follow that very short sentences cause no problems. It is ignorant to think sentences should be limited to single clauses. The technical reason for this is that the connections between clauses are lost when sentences are split. What you have got in the first paragraph is a collection of short sentences which don't sit well together; they don't flow naturally.
3. Do get rid of horrible slang phrases, such as "dragged his feet", "got grumbly" and "man up". They clash with the rest of the text.
4. You have got into deep water by saying (correctly) that there were mixed feelings when the new ballet was shown, and indeed is is true that it was not performed for many, many years. How then was it "a splendid production and a great success", playing "to packed houses"? It ran for only 11 performances! Do be sensible.

Sugar Plum

1. Not prima ballerina, but 'principal dancer' if you are talking about today. The ballerina article explains modern terminology.
2. The first para (from Jennifer Fisher) is mostly blather: vague generalised tripe. I'd cut it all out.
3. You (or Fisher) touch on an interesting issue with the remark about the shape of modern dancers versus dancers of the nineteenth century. This is indeed a major topic of discussion in the ballet generally. Female dancers are taller and physically better conditioned than they were, and are said to be less able at the acting part of roles. This has changed the 'feel' of many ballets. But it applies no more to Clara or Sugar Plum as to any other leading female role. Specific to the early performances was the dissonance caused by the plump Dell'Era.
4. Graphic interferes with text: too wide

Choreography

1. I wonder about the benefit of being so historical. We know little about the early choreography, and of all ballets Nutcracker is the one with most frequent changes in choreography and scenery. I've seen the ballet three times in four years recently (different ballet companies). Each one had significantly different choreography. If the original was such a failure, and the modern versions such a success (which they are), surely we should concentrate on what the modern performances are doing right? Anyway, talking about dance technique is almost pointless except for readers who have some dance training. Suggest shorten section.

Reception and legacy

1. Well, this is a good and interesting section: why not put it up near the top of the page? I would put it immediately after the intro. It's the best part of the article.
2. Graphic interferes with text again.

I don't expect you to accept all these points. They are the kind of things I would attend to myself, but not everyone thinks alike. However, IMO the page as it stands now is not a GA. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Osiris

Hi there! I had started making some notes when you posted a reply on the PGA page yesterday. But you've made some major changes since then, and cut the article down quite a bit. So my comments below unfortunately jump back and forth slightly depending on which version I preferred. Please remember that a "good article" needs only to comply with policies, guidelines and the listing requirements. That's all that is asked of a "good article". So unless suggestions are explicitly to do with one of these things, they're mostly just about personal preference, and it doesn't make much of a difference to the article being a "good article" whether or not you decide to act on them.

Introduction

• Your earlier version of the lead was better in my opinion (sorry), though there are some good additions like the libretto authors (the names of whom, by the way, should be linked given this is the first mention of them). The story (or what the ballet is about) should absolutely be mentioned in the lead; it should summarise the key points the whole article.
• I generally prefer seeing the original (in this case, Russian) name in the opening sentence. Whether you include it or not is really a personal preference. The manual of style encourages "relevant foreign-language names" to follow the English title. Putting it in a footnote is really only necessary when you have multiple foreign scripts cluttering the opening, which isn't the case here. If you do decide to put it back—and it should definitely be shown somewhere—, the transliteration (romanisation) should go beside it, separated by a comma.
• Given what was said above about the title, perhaps add the opus number to the music section instead.

Writing and style

• There are a few big words here and there (examples are "cohesiveness", "devouring", "appropriated", "aplomb"). Check through the page and consider whether those you find are essential or whether you are able to substitute them with smaller ones. If can't change them, you can link them to Wiktionary if the entry exists there, or explain what they mean in parentheses. There are quite a few words that could use links to explain what they mean (examples are "pantomime", "extant", "overture").
• Ideally, the sections should be ordered chronologically. Most readers will want to read the background to making the ballet before they read about the responses to its performance.

Coverage

• I liked your original plot summary. It was a perfect length, and the new one feels too brief. I suggest merging your new plot summary with the old one and cutting out any excessive detail. The only major concern I had with the old summary was that it your own summary of the libretto, rather than being constructed from summaries that have already been published in reliable sources. If you can find more like Wiley, and add the information from those, it reduces the chance of adding original research, and you'll have used reliable third-party publications instead of primary sources.
• I also liked your original choreography section. How the ballet was originally choreographed and how it is done today are two important aspects—you might simply add a paragraph about modern adaptations in order to balance out the rest of the section. It wasn't overly excessive in my opinion and I'd hate to see that content thrown away.
• I noted that you also moved the section on Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy to a new article. This is fine, although I prefered seeing it on the same page. It might be a good idea to add this back as a subsection of the choreography section. If you feel it's too long, you can use summary style, with a hatnote to the full version kept as a separate article. This also goes for Waltz of the Flowers.

Illustrations

• The images are great, and the captions are well written. In fact, this is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing candidates I've seen at PGA. If you know how to, please add alternative text to the markup (otherwise, just ask and I can show you what I mean).
• If you do decide to restore some of those sections (and I think you should), just note that text should never be squeezed between two objects.

Sourcing

• If you're using Harvard-style footnotes, use {{Harv}} so that I can click on them and it takes me to the full reference. There are instructions here, or just ask me and I can show you how.
• Take a look at the layout guide on how to structure the appendices.

When you've got the version you're happy with, check your links for any unwanted redirects or links to disambiguation pages. I think this a good candidate. Osiris (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN comments

Comments

Lead

• "The Nutcracker is a ballet in two acts." - link ballet since it is the first instance.
  • Ballet is on the Basic Word List. It is assumed the reader knows the meanings of words on the Basic List so "ballet" doesn't need to be linked.
• "The story is about a little girl named Clara and a fairy tale prince who journey to the Land of Sweets on Christmas Eve." - would it be "young"? unless the girl is very little in length?
  • "Little girl" is common in American English. "Little girl" generally means a girl younger than a teenager. "Young girl" is okay but could suggest a teenage girl or even a young woman, leaving the reader misinformed.
• "Marius Petipa designed the dances," - how can she designed the dances? you mean choreographed?
  • "Choreograph" is not on the Basic Word List. "Design" is. I prefer "choreograph" but we are asked to use the Word List whenever possible.
• "but Lev Ivanov completed them when Petipa fell ill" - link sick and change "fell" to "became"
  • "Ill" is on the Basic Word List, "Sick" is not. "Fell ill" is not uncommon in written English. I prefer it here.
• Wikitory modest
  • "Modest" is on the Basic Word List so it doesn't need to be wikitoried.
• "About fifty years after the first night, people took more interest in the ballet when Walt Disney used some of the music in the movie Fantasia." - add the year of release of Fantasia in parentheses.
•  Done

Origin of the ballet

• "The origin of The Nutcracker has its roots in the great success of The Sleeping Beauty ballet at the Mariinsky Theatre in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1890." - needs simplification
•  Done

Story of the ballet

• "The children get their presents and dance happily about the room." - needs simplification
•  Done
• "A strange little man named Drosselmeyer comes in" - is he small in length?
  • He is little (short) in heighth. "Short" would be awkward here. "A strange short man..."
• "He is an inventor of playthings" - link inventor, also wouldn't it be better to say "He invents toys for children"?
  • Used "makes" instead. "Toys" is not on the Basic Word List.
• Link amuse
• Link nutcracker
•  Done
• "Clara creeps back to the room to be certain her Nutcracker is resting quietly" - needs simplification
•  Done
• "All of a sudden, mice start running about the room." - running about?
  • "Running around" would be preferred but "around" is not on the Word List.
• "She welcomes the two children and orders her subjects to amuse them with dances." - needs simplification
•  Done

Cast

• "A little girl named Clara Silberhaus is the most important character in the ballet." - you mean main character?
  • I mean "main" but it's not on the Word List. She is however the "most important" character in the ballet.
• "but twelve year old" - years
  • "Twelve year old" is correct here.
• "Both children were pupils in the St. Petersburg Imperial Ballet School. " - needs simplification
  • I don't understand how this simple sentence needs to be simplified.
• "He seems to be the one behind all the strange and magical things that take place in the ballet." - this sentence is written as if someone was writing a review after recently watching the play.
•  Done

Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy

• "It looks like a little piano, but sounds like bells." - as per above sounds like a review
• Be consistent in weather or not you italicized celesta, though I'm not familiar with this topic and its MOS.
• [14][7] - fix these in numerical order.
• Link dull
• "Another ballet-goer thought" - needs simplification
• "Tchaikovsky thought the staging was very beautiful, so much so that it tired his eyes to look at its beauty" - is POV-ish since he was the writer, I see no reason why to keep it.

What happened later

• "He died almost a year after the ballet's first night on 6 November 1893." - why?
•  Done
• "please the ballet lovers who tuned-in" - who watched it
•  Done
• "There have been many interesting adaptations over the years." - POV
•  Done
• " The greatest complaint levelled against the ballet today seems to be the stereotypical pictures of children (boys are nasty, girls are nice) presented in the ballet and the stereotypical pictures of the ethnic (Chinese, Russian, and Arabian) characters in Act 2." - Another POV sentence that needs simplification.
•  Done

Hope this helps and best of luck on GA. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

topic organisation

The arrangement of sections has to be logical and ordered: that is part of its being a good article. I have reordered sections put in by a new editor. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good Article

Hello, I can see that you have a very nice article. I'm new in wikipedia and If you don't mind I would ask for your help in writing a good article. Thanks!173.58.238.116 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Linked words in the last section

Are we certain that words such as "indulge" or "convinced" need to be links? Doesn't it just pointlessly detract from readability? 31.190.69.43 (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)