Talk:Les Fêtes Chinoises

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeLes Fêtes Chinoises was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 1, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 13, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that threats of war between England and France and English antagonism to French dancers led to riots in 1755 with the first London production of Noverre's Les Fêtes Chinoises completely destroyed?
WikiProject iconDance: Ballet
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ballet.
WikiProject Ballet To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

The long footnote on the development of chinoiserie from the 17th century might be better at that article.--Wetman (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime‎, the offline sources used in this article need be verified to ensure they both exist and to verify they say what is claimed. Sockpuppet who created the article has long history of being untruthful, and are known for their almost exclusive use of offline resources that would generally just be taken on good faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found at least one source that does verify the existence of the piece ([1]), and that its author is as claimed. Another seems to largely confirm its plot ([2]). Given this verification, I'm willing to take responsibility here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty. The sock has been blocked, so will leave to you to decide what to do with the current GAN as they will be unable to respond (unless they make more socks) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that part to (legitimate) good article reviewers. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a separate question, would you have any objection to removing the dispute tag, given that it does seem that this is verifiable? Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer it remain tagged until all claimed sources are verified. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the controversy over the sourcing of the article, plus the {{disputed}} tag, I am quick-failing this article's GA review (before it even technically started). @harej 01:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]