Talk:Salon (France)

"The historiography of the salons is far from straightforward. The salons have been studied in depth by a mixture of feminist, Marxist, cultural, social and intellectual historians. Each of these methodologies focuses on different aspects of the salons, and thus there are varying analyses of the salons’ importance in terms of French history and the Enlightenment as a whole."

What on Earth do sentences like this mean? How does this contribute to the article? Is there a Wikipedia policy that requires content to be coherent? If so I suspect this may be in violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1025:844b:d07:4aef:c1b8:888d (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

It makes fine sense to me. All grammar is in order, and it adds to the article by demonstrating the way salons are relevant to various subjects and the range of interpretations as a result. If you still have trouble deciphering the statement... may I suggest the Simple English Wikipedia instead? Limacidae (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no simple English Wikipedia entry for this page. TheDwarvenGuy (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem to match the rest of Wikipedia's voice and structure

This article is very strange to me, since it doesn't match the standard voice of a main page wikipedia article. It reads much more like an essay or report.

Firstly, it doesn't explain what a salon is in the first paragraph, instead saying something about salons. This makes the article seem like it's only intended for people who already know about salons, and not for people who are just learning about the subject. This is not how wikipedia is supposed to be written, a reader should be able to understand what the article is about without any prior knowledge.

For an example of how to do it correctly, the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article for Kabuki reads "Kabuki (歌舞伎) is a classical form of Japanese dance-drama. Kabuki theatre is known for its heavily-stylized performances, the often-glamorous costumes worn by performers, and for the elaborate kumadori make-up worn by some of its performers." The first sentence tells the reader what Kabuki is. 'Then', in the second sentence, it tells the reader something about Kabuki.

The second thing strange about this article is that the only section is about historiography. This is not bad in and of itself, but it's hard for a casual reader to gleam the history from the historiography. There are many sections of the "historiography" section that aren't historiographic, and deserve either their own section, or to be put into overarching sections like "History" or "Criticism".

I hope this article gets fixed, but at the moment it seems pretty uninviting for the casual reader. I'm not informed enough to fix it myself, but hopefully this gives a good critique that someone who is informed enough can use.

TheDwarvenGuy (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Seems like a disambiguation would be helpful here to distinguish the literary & intellectual gatherings from the French art exhibitions of the same name. Iandaandi (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)