Talk:Swan Lake

These are irrelevant. Surely someone should remove them and put them into another article somewhere? Xgretsch (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to include a lengthy description of a low-budget cartoon intended to sell dolls in the same article as what it bastardized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.78.11 (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I cleaned it up a bit in order to make it clearer to a wider audience, but there is a great deal of information here now, more than most people would ever want to read, I think! Much of the info stated in this article is either immensely trivial and/or not completely verifiable due to the large amount (mountains of it) of incorrect "historical facts" which have been recounted --and publiished-- but which cannot all be true. In this spirit, perhaps less would be more for our wonderful Wiki Swan Lake! Queenofthewilis 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The introduction to this article is a mess. It needs to be parsed down to a simple definition that is accessible to a wide audience. All that other information needs to be moved into a different section, as it is not important enough to be in the intro (such as the huge list of Balletmasters and choreographers).

• The people adding loads of information need to read the Wikipedia:Manual of style and proofread their edits before dumping the information onto the page. Your contributions are appreciated, but don't trash things for Christssakes! 71.240.9.37

• I tried to restructure the article, so the introduction is concise. I could not find the proper place to put "The Ballet has 4 Acts, 4 Scenes (primarily outside Russia and Eastern Europe) or 3 Acts, 4 Scenes (primarily in Russia and Eastern Europe)." so I left it out, although I know it should be mentioned. My language in the introduction could be improved as can the titles I put in new sections.--Atavi 02:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article is definitely in need of editing. While the various sections contain a lot of information, I truly do not believe that it is all needed here. This is the main point: ENTIRE books can be written about the ballet Swan Lake, (and have been). But is this what Wikipedia should be doing? This is no longer just a matter of "cleaning things up". An encyclopedia does not have to be a thesis... I believe I miss our dear little Swan Lake article that existed earlier in the summer. What does every one else in the WikiDance group feel? I Would love the opinions of others on this and how to proceed. Queenofthewilis 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. I just visited the article for the first time, and my jaw dropped lower and lower as I scrolled down page after page after page after page .... Gadzoiks, this article *packed* and *long*. In the end, tho, I have to agree with Queenofthewilis - this article represents those rare times were a Wiki article actually hits, and blasts past, critical mass.

As I scanned through the article, I kept catching myself wishing there were summaries of each section (for example, each act in the section dealing with the acts of the piece): this is a clear warning flag that there may be too much info in the article. But, kudos to all the work that has gone into the article: future editors and cleaners-up will have a wealth of material to work with.

I want to highlight the first sentence in the article: it was this that actually brought me here to this discussion page. I think the first sentence itself is a good example of the overabundance of information in the article:

"Swan Lake (ru. Лебединое Озеро) is a ballet presented in either four Acts, four Scenes (primarily outside Russia and Eastern Europe) or three Acts, four Scenes (primarily in Russia and Eastern Europe), based on a libretto by Vladimir Begichev and (possibly) Vasily Geltser, fashioned from an ancient German legend, which tells the story of Odette, a princess turned into a swan by an evil sorcerer's curse."

Yikes! Thats a whole lot of information crammed in there, and the result is difficult to parse. I think the rest of the article follows this dense tone, and agree that it could be worth considering doing a global lowering of information resolution, so to speak. Dxco 23:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I must "beg for the pardon" from anyone who has a problem with my transformation of this article into a prolific, info-packed, "Swan Lake" bible. I know that some of you, for whatever reason, would rather have a more "summed up" approach to the article. I must point out that there are quite alot places online where one could go to find a "summed up" page on the ballet "Swan Lake", and if I would have done something along those lines with our wikipedia article, then what would be the point? Why would someone come to wikipedia for their "Swan Lake needs" if they can get the same info here that they can get on any one of those many other web pages? Wikipedia gives one an extraordinary opportunity to provide comprehensive articles on all sorts of subjects, and I saw an oppurtunity to contribute...to make the article something that is worthy of being called an encyclopedia article with regard to the info it provides - since I know for a fact one cannot get most of this info on the web (there are no ballet-only encyclopedias online as of yet), or without consulting old, out-of-print books...I wanted to share it with everyone. I did the same thing on a few other ballet-related articles I have written, or expanded on a great deal. The info I have added on "Swan Lake" is by NO MEANS thesis, and I did not contribute 1 sentence that even points to anything theoretical. Its all facts. Since I type fast and have my own balletic-data-base in my head and on my book shelves, it was really not much trouble. But anyway I have no problem compromising, so should anyone wish to down-grade the article, be my guest, but I really dont see what this will accomplish in the long run. For if it is taken back to the level of the "dear little article" it used to be, then there really isnt any point in accessing the page. --Mrlopez2681 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• No complaints from this peanut gallery, Mrlopez. I think the Wikipedia article(s) on Swan Lake are most informative. You might be the just person to answer my question below about the famous long-lost Sobshchanskaya Pas de Deux below. Regards, Csmpsn (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The de.wikipedia.org page on Swan Lake (Schwanensee) has a lot of information that ought to be on the English page, including a number of pictures. Someone should translate it. Tcassedy 06:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apparently there have been dozens of versions of Swan Lake. The version I saw last night was written and choreographed by Christopher Wheeldon, and it embeds the classic story inside a framing story about a ballet company performing the classic Swan Lake, and makes explicit reference to the ballet paintings of Degas. I think it deserves mention here. Rpresser 14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be interesting to list some of the many ways that Swan Lake has been embedded in other stories and reworked in original ways by choreographers. Matthew Bourne's famous staging in which the swans are danced by men comes to mind. However, Wheeldon's version that you saw at Pennsylvania Ballet isn't itself equal in importance to the normal versions danced by City Ballet, ABT, the Bolshoi, and so on. We could have a "reworkings" section. Tcassedy 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added information on the music. The translation from French was done off-the-cuff, so I'm not sure if it's spot on. (Particularly: Entrance of the Guests, since I'm not sure if sortie can be used like that, but I seem to remember it as the guests entering. Dance of the Cygnets, because it literally tanslates as "Dance of the Little Swans". So are they babies or physically small? I chose babies. Dance of the Glasses because I've seen it translated as goblet rather than glass, but I think there is a different French word for goblet. I didn't translate "Corps de Ballet" because the noun is widely used in English.) Also, I left out the info about adagios, andantes, allegros, etc. under the Pas de deux and other parts. Should I include them? I feel like it would make things too long, and I really don't know enough about wiki-formatting to make it look better (with tables or something). Guermantes 21:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's "Little Swans." Tcassedy 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did some googling after my original message and saw that the translations I had issues with where translated in a variety of ways (so I left them as is). Does anyone know of a reasonably authoritative listing of the English titles? Guermantes 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the {{fact}} tag about Schubert. There is no citation as far as I know about the music in the moderato scene resembling schubert 8th symphony, first movement. However, I have listened repeatedly to both pieces and I think that the resemblence is striking. In fact, when I first listened to the 8th, I briefly thought I was listening to Swan lake. Please if you have a different opinion, or indeed those of you who have the same, write about it on the talk page. If a majority feels that there isn't a significant resemblence, or if someone feels very strongly that there isn't I will not object to removing the passage ----Atavi 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I added that fact tag because it's the type of thing that I could see other editors removing as "original research". You can remove it if you wish; I was just hoping someone would find a source for it, as it is an interesting tidbit. Guermantes 18:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right, that this could be termed "original research", even though it's something that if it is true, it should be straightforward to spot. I won't remove the tag, but I will try to find a source.-Atavi 20:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the text to the effect that Odette and Odile are not always danced by the same person. I based this on http://www.balletmet.org/Notes/SWANLAKE.HTM I don't put the link in the main article, because it is too specific to that choreography and performance to feature as a reference for a general article. --Atavi 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever it may say on the Balletnotes web page, Odette/Odile is always danced by the same person - the tradition of having the role danced by 2 different Ballerinas has not been "in effect" since the 1950s in Russia.

Just because a web page says something doesnt mean its true. If I am going to contribute anything regarding ballet history it is true. :Mrlopez2681 07:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that someone did use two different dancers. The web page I used as a reference is the official webpage of Ballet Met at Columbus, Ohio. Not the best ballet company in the world, but this doesn't change the fact that they chose to use two different ballerinas. The page is an "interview" with David Nixon.--Atavi 08:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Odette is not always danced by the same person, especially in less accomplished performances. To say otherwise is a falsehood. The role ws intended for the same woman to play both parts. Precision of language is a must in this situation. 130.49.148.187

I dont think that WIKIPEDIA should be a place where things are summed up.

With the amount of information that I contributed there was, until it was removed, a place where one could find info not available anywhere else on the web......that is my goal at least to share knowledge, etc.

Your information was not removed. It was moved. Swan Lake#Choreography Development--Atavi 08:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody know the complete index of the orchestral suite? As far as I am concerned:

1. Play
2. Waltz
3. Dance of the Little Swans

I do not think this is complete (resource:a compilation CD).

Coeshee 08:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There are actually three versions of the orchestral suite (Op. 20a) presently in circulation, none of which were actually extracted by the composer. The first, which was published in November 1900 by Jurgenson (full score, plate 25803, 102 pages; parts, plate 25804) - reprinted by Boosey & Hawkes, Eulenburg, Dover, Kalmus-Alfred, et al. This suite, which may have been extracted by Riccardo Drigo, consists of the following movements (The numbering below in parens is from the original 1877 ballet score):

1. Scene (No. 10 - Act II, which is also the Act II Finale, No. 14 - they are identical)
2. Valse (No. 2 - Act I)
3. Danse des Cygnes (No. 13, Var. IV - Act II), aka Dance of the Little Swans, though the original Danse des Petits Cygnes is No. 27
4. Scene (No. 13, Var. V 'Pas d'Action' - Act II, abridged)
5. Czardas - Danse Hongroise (No. 20 - Act III)
6. Scene (No. 28, plus the first 26 bars of No. 29 'Finale' - Act IV)

The second version published (Moscow, 1954, Muzgiz), dropped the last movement of the 1900 version and added three of the national dances from Act III. It used the music plates, with typographical modifications, from the 1900 suite and the full ballet score issued by Jurgenson in 1895 or 1896. This suite was reprinted by E. F. Kalmus as A2185 until 2006. Its contents are:

1. Scene (No. 10 - Act II)
2. Valse (No. 2 - Act I)
3. Danse des Cygnes (No. 13, Var. IV - Act II)
4. Scene (No. 13, Var. V 'Pas d'Action' - Act II, abridged)
5. Czardas - Danse Hongroise (No. 20 - Act III)
6. Danse Espagnole (No. 21 - Act III)
7. Danse Napolitaine (No. 22 - Act III)
8. Mazurka (No. 24 - Act III)

The third version of Op. 20 was issued in 2006 by E. F. Kalmus and is a new engraving altogether (A2185, 132 pages, music on 5-129 and orchestra parts) and edited by myself (Carl Simpson). It is really an amalgamation of the two preceding suites, which leaves the performer the option to do either the 1900, 1954, or even the 2006 suite, which restores the 1900 final movement with a slight re-titling as "Scene et Finale." Its complete order is therefore:

1. Scene (No. 10 - Act II)
2. Valse (No. 2 - Act I)
3. Danse des Cygnes (No. 13, Var. IV - Act II)
4. Scene (No. 13, Var. V 'Pas d'Action' - Act II, abridged)
5. Czardas - Danse Hongroise (No. 20 - Act III)
6. Danse Espagnole (No. 21 - Act III)
7. Danse Napolitaine (No. 22 - Act III)
8. Mazurka (No. 24 - Act III)
9. Scene et Finale (No. 28, plus the first 26 bars of No. 29 'Finale' - Act IV)

The whole thing lasts about 35 minutes. Much like the tradition surrounding the ballet itself, there are a number of conductors over the years who've made up their own "suites" from Swan Lake, most of which contain at least some of the movments listed above. Csmpsn (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I eliminated the combination Synopsis/Structure table. Rationale:

1) To make this page consistent with others that have separate Synopses and Structure sections.
2) Maintaining them together limits the ability to embed graphics.
3) The two lists did not synchronize event-wise, and would likely continue to fail to align, given periodic changes to each list. Ivan Velikii (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While the Wikipedia article gives a fairly decent overview of how this piece came about as a result of Anna Sobeshchanskaya's trip to St. Peterburg to see Petipa who supplied the choreography while Minkus supplied the music, I have seen no evidence whatever for the assertion made in the article that Tchaikovsky simply re-harmonized and re-orchestrated Minkus' score. Neither R. J. Wley (Tchaikovsky's Ballets), Jordan & Kirkor (Polnoe Sobrannie Sochinenii - Complete Works, Vol. 11), or Poznansky & Langston (The Tchaikovsky Handbook) make this claim. In fact, all three works specifically mention that Tchaikovsky composed a new score which matched Minkus' in terms of tempo and number of beats, and that Sobeshchanskaya was so pleased with Tchaikosvky's work she requested an addiional variation, which was supplied. Jordan & Kirkor also mention the discovery of the long-missing violin repetiteur (an arrangement for two violins) and a set of orchetsra parts for the 2nd variation in their preface. The remainder of the work has been reconstructed from the repetiteur by Vissarion Shebalin. Would someone care to elaborate? Csmpsn (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are references in popular culture integrated into the adaptations heading? That doesn't make much sense. 151.201.32.126 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How should the name of the composer of the music for “Serenade” be spelled? Most Westerners now spell it Tchaikovsky, but City Ballet took up, during Balanchine’s lifetime, the spelling Tschaikovsky. Why? Because that’s how the composer spelled it when he was in New York in 1891. (My thanks to the reader who sent me a copy of his Carnegie Hall autograph from the Pierpont Morgan Library.)

NY Times article by Alastair Macaulay, June 1, 2007

The subsection on von Rothbart was previously a seperate article which is now a redirect to Swan Lake#von Rothbart. — Robert Greer (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

i just read this article and as far as i know Odette is not a fairy just a princess that got turned into a swan...i'm surprised no one noticed that. also the article does not mention the swan maidens, who are some other girls that got turned into swans. and also i just wanted to ask: why is there an entire section on von rothbart and not any of the other characters? ?????????Fffgg (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please mop up the Odette section? It's far too cumbersome as it is, and the subheadings for Swan Princess and Barbie of Swan Lake have no reason to be here, especially as each has their own wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.170.7 (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Czechoslovakian Léon Minkus" There was no Czechoslovakia at the time when Tchaikovsky worked on Swan Lake. Then Minkus was born in Vienna of a Moravian father and a possibly Hungarian mother. Please correct. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.45.29 (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradictory information is given, in different parts of the article, on the ending used in the original productions of Swan Lake, while Tchaikovsky was still alive (1877 to 1893). In the section "Petipa-Ivanov-Drigo revival of 1895", it is stated "... the most prominent being his [Tchaikovsky's brother Modest] revision of the ballet's finale; instead of the lovers simply drowning at the hand of the wicked Von Rothbart as in the original 1877 scenario, Odette commits suicide by drowning herself ...". However, in the section "Synopsis, Act 4" it is stated "In the original 1877 ballet, Siegfried struggles with Von Rothbart and tears off one of his wings, thereby destroying his powers. Siegfried has broken the spell of the swan maidens and marries Odette."

I do not know the correct answer to the question, which ending was used during the lifetime of Tchaikovsky? Maybe the answer can be found in a biography of Tchaikovsky or a history of Russian ballet. Lhrobins (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I just came here to comment that as well. Anyone know the answer? --zandperl (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The ballet was premiered by the Bolshoi Ballet on March 4 [O.S. February 20] 1877[2][3] at the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow, billed as The Lake of the Swans.

• I'm not sure how to intepret this. Are we saying it had an English title - in a Russian theatre? Or are we saying it had the French title Le lac des cygnes, which translates literally as "The Lake of the Swans"? Or did it have the Russian title? If French is the answer, you can't just translate it word for word into English and assert that that was how it was billed. You have to translate the whole title, and the only correct translation of Le lac des cygnes is "Swan Lake", not "The Lake of the Swans". -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No response, so I'm removing this silly claim. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose some changes to the synopsis so that it more closely follows the 1895 Petipa and Ivanov version of the ballet. Although there are many versions of Swan Lake, this is still the most frequently performed. The key additions I'd suggest are:

• Siegfried's friends (in particular, Benno, a key character), with whom he pursues the swans.
• Siegfried's birthday party, with which Act I of the Petipa/Ivanov version opens.
• The six princesses with whom Siegfried dances at the palace ball, at the instruction of his mother.
• The vision of Odette that appears, trying to warn Siegfried as he dances with Odile.

Any thoughts on these changes would be much appreciated. Many thanks! OperaBalletRose (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

information on the Cats' UK #48 cover version of this song?--Launchballer 16:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not belong in the article as this is about the entire ballet. Individual song covers, even with a citation, are not notable enough for inclusion in this article. Icarus of old (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops - completely forgot about this. Would a separate article on it be worth including?--Launchballer 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether people think I should or should not add a bullet item on the 1983 Pacific Northwest Ballet adaption by Kent Stowell. This version changes the ending: "Odette, now resigned to her existence, bids a sad, lingering farewell to Siegfried. The Prince knows that she is gone forever. In utter grief, he is left alone." The deaths of Rothbart and Odille are omitted, as is any apotheosis. It also moves the first act from a village to the court. This version was reworked in 2003 and remains prominent in the company's repertoire. Does that sound "significant" enough to warrant inclusion in the list of Adaptations? (Reference: http://www.pnb.org/Season/12-13/SwanLake/#Details-Story) GCL (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone made a horribly structured addition about Swan Lake in the TV show Once Upon a Time. They used @ symbols and the word thru among other things. I honestly can't make sense of half of what they're trying to say. Can someone clean this up, or just delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.140.181 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The story is allegedly based on German and Russian fairy tales, and the ballet is of Russian origin, but the English version of the names in the story is that of French. I am just curious why the English names are not transcribed from Russian so that Odette and Odile would be Odeta and Odilia, respectively. --Roland (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Who claimed Swan Lake was inspired by "The White Duck"? It's not in the article given as a source (Wayback: https://web.archive.org/web/20170329022755/http://www.roh.org.uk/news/the-swan-lake-mystery-an-amalgam-of-different-fairytales) A lot of books 2015 and after mention this connection, but are they just pulling from this page? Sgallison (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This article fails to mention that the Harry Potter movie franchise main theme is based on Swan Lake scene 1. 188.143.7.2 (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi -- I've added the AI generated tag here, as the edits by @BassiStone display many signs of LLM output, including inappropriate promotional tone (e.g. This version exemplifies how Swan Lake continues to evolve, balancing tradition with interpretive variations that reflect shifting aesthetic and ideological contexts and similar). Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello User:Gnomingstuff

I understand that this concern is common, so I do not fault you for considering it. I acknowledge that I use AI tools to assist with sourcing and grammar, but the text I produce is my own, shaped with considerable time and thought. AI primarily serves as a resource to help me avoid grammatical errors, I do not rely on it to decide what I write. In fact, I invest significant effort in preparing my material before editing it. Having worked as a ballet dancer myself, including performing in Swan Lake, my ability to express ideas such as those in your example is grounded in many years of experience in the field

I will take the point and be more mindful of how I use AI to assist me in grammar so my text may retain more of myself. I will even go through my previous edits to see if I can remove any inclination of using AI to assist in sentence structure. BassiStone BassiStone (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reinstated the tag for now, since it only indicates that AI was used. Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I ask you to reread what I wrote, there is no rule against using grammar correcting programs or search engines, I am afraid you are conflating a narrow and wide usage of the term AI. No need to flag my text as if I didn't write it. Unless you want to mark it as an editor who uses aid to make my language free from error. It is 2025, it is really not controversial or something to blow out of proportion.

Beyond being concerned of that my language is above my intelligence, do you have any problem with the content of my edits? BassiStone (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am a human, I use my own brain, and if the language I chose needs modification for any reason that is fine. BassiStone (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff I'm less apt to read this now, knowing an LLM was used here. Especially given the numerous errors in the other user's replies. I do not trust LLMs. Just one person's two cents. Thanks for flagging. Osiriscorleone (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: Keeping this tag up for months is not ideal. Do you mind cleaning up the offending sections? Otherwise I propose a revert to a stable version. intforce (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

However, if the matter is about that the text should be written in a more simple way I don't mind re-writing in a different way. Though I already rewrote much of the critiqued text in that vain, I can give it an other go because this is an important article to get right. BassiStone (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Please provide clear evidence that I relied on AI to generate my text, as I emphatically deny doing so. Wikipedia does not forbid the reasonable use of AI tools. While employing AI to conceive entire texts or other uses beyond assisting with research and grammar is rightly prohibited, that is not the situation here. Wikipedia's AI policy is transparent and I am fully adhering to all its guidelines. BassiStone (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Why don’t we start with you, as you are better positioned to talk about your process. Did you use AI, yes or no. It should be an easy question to answer. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

That is not the standard. One may use AI for smaller tasks as language correction, search for sources, or text analysis. Which I do.

I do not misuse AI by having it generate text or any other forbidden way.

You are the one asserting that I am using AI to generate text, the burden of evidence is on you. I do not have to prove a negative. Show me the evidence. BassiStone (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Using generative AI tools with Wikipedia - Wiki Education Dashboard

Wikipedia:Large language models - Wikipedia

Also see:

WP:LLM

WP:LLMS

WP:GPT

WP:CHATBOT

WP:CHATGPT BassiStone (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I would kindly suggest removing the tag. If there is still no evidence that the text was generated by AI, it may be appropriate to consider letting it go. BassiStone (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

• I was just watching a performance of Swan Lake and so looked at the article. The {{AI-generated}} tag is a grating start and so I investigated. Here's my findings.

1. Gnomingstuff's complaint is short of specifics, just providing one sample sentence and no diffs. The issue in the case of that sentence is that the prose is too florid. This perhaps violates WP:PEACOCK but I see that BassiStone is making some effort to tone this down such as I am taking effort to remove previous language I wrote that may be considered puffing or overly relying on AI to help with sentence structure....
2. The article is large and much of it pre-dates the work of BassiStone. But they are now shown to be the dominant author by Xtools which gives their authorship ratio as 45%, with the next editor being Mrlopez2681 with 7%.
3. I have made spot-checks on the content. The main things that I notice that there are large paragraphs with no inline citation and I get the impression that BassiStone has been trying to add sources for such. Some of the sources which do exist seem suspect as they are ticketing websites. For example, the lead has a link to a website called BookMyShow relating to a performance in India. I've not noticed BassiStone adding such potential SEO spam and would encourage them to clean up such if they find it.
4. I made a systematic fact-check using an AI tool Gemini Pro. This may seem ironic but there are valid precedents per Signpost and my own experience of validating an FA in a similar way which was reasonably accurate. FYI, the report for this article is below and it doesn't find any issues.

My conclusion is that the article still requires lots of cleanup but that there's no hard evidence that BassiStone is not a good faith editor who is responsive to Gnomingstuff's concern. I don't think the banner tag should be retained as the AI content does not seem significantly worse than other issues with the article and it is too general and vague to be actionable in a specific way. Inline tags should be used where there are specific issues.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The banner is factually correct: the article indeed incorporates text from a large language model. That is a fact. It says nothing about good or bad faith. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

As I am confident that my actions fully complied with Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines, and given that considerable time has passed without any evidence presented, this experience has left me questioning how seriously and appreciatively Wikipedia administrators regard the efforts of volunteers who contribute their time for the common good. Not a single word of encouragement has been offered, instead, I feel as though I am being treated as a malicious actor, far removed from the principle of assuming good faith. BassiStone (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Neither Gnomingstuff nor myself are administrators; we're just experienced editors. BassiStone should click on our account names to read our user pages and so better understand our background. They should then please make a start on a user page of their own as their account name is currently a red link and this doesn't look good. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Noted.

Then I would kindly ask my fellow volunteer editor to consider to write in a manner conducive to a productive work environment. For instance, please help me by editing the article in accordance with how you see things should be done, rather than continuously complaining about suspected AI, without evidence. BassiStone (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The evidence is that you said you used AI. You literally provided the evidence yourself. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Playing with words. I would appreciate if I could focus on editing articles over having to deal with this discussion over and over. Are we back at discussing if any use of AI is acceptable? I thought this was cleared in the discussion above. You are accusing me of AI generated text to be specific which is not true. That I have no problem saying I use AI to look for sources, analyse text and to assist with grammar is not admitting to missuse of AI. You should drop this. I BassiStone (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I removed the citation to Classicals.de – Royalty Free Classical Music from the lead. The site is a commercial audio-licensing platform and doesn’t  meet WP:RS standards . It has no independent editorial oversight, fact-checking, and subject-matter authority. It can’t  be used to verify historical or contextual information about Swan Lake. MackSully0429 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Though we differ on one point (if all AI is forbidden, or if there are some smaller tasks AI is allowed to assist in as a Wikipedia editor) I am conceding to Gnomingstuff that the Swan Lake article needs major improvements to meet good article standards. All sources should be scholarly and reliable, not promotional or speculative. The article’s structure is unfocused and too long; it needs trimming and splitting, especially the production and adaptations sections. The lead must better summarize the whole article’s key points with proper weight. The style should be clearer, neutral, and less interpretive, with all claims well sourced. Coverage should balance historical reception, music analysis, and modern influence. Remove irrelevant categories and tighten lists to essentials only. This will fix sourcing, clarity, focus, and reliability, enabling a polished, well-structured article fit for good article status.

It's a big project, I will spend the weekend and next week on it. To all editors, please assist with your critical eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BassiStone (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC) BassiStone (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Your goals seem excellent and it's our policy to encourage such bold action. It may help to have an example of good work in this field so please see The Firebird, which is perhaps the only ballet article to have reached featured article status, which is as good as it gets. The FAC discussion indicates that the following editors may be able to advise and/or help @MyCatIsAChonk, Gerda Arendt, Chiswick Chap, and Corachow: Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating! Sadly, the author MyCatIsAChonk (who also wrote Appalachian Spring) and ballet expert Corachow both have no time for Wikipedia right now. I was just a reviewer. You may want to ask on Tchaikovsky's talk page for the musical aspects and take things from his biography, BassiStone. The earliest ballet FA that I remember, and worth exploring as a model, was The Rite of Spring by Brian Boulton (who died in 2019 and is remembered on my talk page). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

(to briefly come out of retirement) Having briefly skimmed through this article, I agree that this article needs major work. One criticism I have of some ballet articles here is that the content focuses a lot on the music and not much on the dancing. However, Swan Lake is a weird case in that the original choreography doesn't warrant much attention because it doesn't have much to do with productions we see today, but subsequent productions are much more notable. Most productions we see today take it's act II choreography and act III Black Swan pas de deux from the 1895 Petipa/Ivanov/Drigo production, which has its own article, but vary on other choreography, setting, ending, etc. Plus, there are many productions that use Tchaikovsky but don't feature the 1895 choreography at all (on top of my head, Matthew Bourne, Alexander Ekman, Graeme Murphy, David Dawson, George Balanchine).

What I suggest doing with this article on the dance side of things is to trim down the later production sections, simply say most productions today are based on the 1895, plus list other notable productions unaffiliated with the 1895. The later production section should be limited to only on-stage dance performances using Tchaikovsky's music, and other mediums should be in the adaptation section. I think the alternative ending section should be kept, but trimmed down. If you can find anything related to the choreographic process of the original production, I think it's good to mention, even though that production isn't very notable. I think it's also good to summarise the process of the 1895 production because most people will not read that standalone article. The video section is definitely not complete, there are more recordings shown in cinema, television and DVD (plus post-COVID some ballet companies film performances for their own streaming services), but it's probably impossible to include everything. For the article's structure, I agree that The Rite of Spring and The Firebird are good references. Appalachian Spring is a good guide on how to approach on how to write about dance, but not structurally, as it focuses on only one production.

Even though I'm semi-retired now, I'm happy to review the article, but please ping me. Corachow (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)