Talk:Chaperon (headgear)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Chaperon (headgear) was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: March 27, 2007
Did You Know An entry from Chaperon (headgear) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 3, 2007.
Wikipedia
An entry from Cappuccio appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 31 March 2007.
Wikipedia

Cappuccio has been merged here

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chaperon (headgear) article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] turban

I'm not sure that I agree with you re apparent turbans being chaperons in reality. It would be nice if we had some citations to settle the matter either way. I found very little on the history of European turbans online, but I did find pictures of seeming turbans that didn't have the characteristic "wattles" and liripipes of chaperons. I just now paged through my one costume book, the Bruhn and Tilke pictorial history of costume and I found descriptions like these, for plate 46, headdresses, Burgundy, 15th century:

  • Learned man with hat made of a roll of material from which folds of cloth hang down
  • Man of rank in the new-fashioned turban hat

There were also a fair number of pictures of women who seemed to be wearing turbans. Some of them seem to be peasant women; it may have just been a way of protecting the hair and keeping it out of the way.

One would have to look at surviving costumes, instead of just pictures, to be really sure, I would think.

I revised for vagueness. If you have a costume history library, or access to a good one, see if you can find some cites. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Zora 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are loads of reference books & citations at chaperon - try the online-thesis, which is pretty exhaustive. See also the updated "review of the literature" section separately on the same site. She is pretty scathing, convincingly I thought, on the scholarly standards of most of the general costume histories available. Of course it depends what you call a turban, but I think a loosely tied head-cloth with 1-2 layers hardly makes it. Unless you know how the various hat-styles worked, a lot of them do look like turbans, especially in a small photo of a painting etc. Hood & basic hat Chaperons were certainly worn by women, especially peasants as you say, though my article concentrates on men, though mentioning women -see the tres Riches Heures.
There is also a lot of literature on the use of actual turbans in religious scenes at the period to distinguish Jews (or non-Christian Jews to be precise) from Christians in various subjects, especially Passion scenes. This is all purely about iconography & not what people (Jews or Christians) actually wore; but it reinforces that the turban was specifically seen as a non-European headgear.
The most famous supposed portrait with a turban at the period is the NG Van Eyck (see chaperon Gallery). The NG catalogue (Campbell) emphasizes this is an evolved chaperon not a turban. Essentially I use their terminology - Reed uses rather different ones.
Slightly surprised you are the one criticise me for vagueness & lack of citations, if you don't mind me saying so! I'll have to go along & take a look. I think I will copy this to the chaperon talk-page, btw. Please continue it there if needed.
Copied from my user pageJohnbod 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article ...

... is the perfect example of why I love Wikipedia so much. It's downright amazing that these wonderfully detailed articles about obscure topics get written! Thank you for it! mstroeck 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Right! I love articles that make me look for things in museums etc. that I hadn't even noticed before. --AndreasPraefcke 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA stuff

Passed. May require some better cleanup/expansion if you try to bring it to FA level, and I'd reconsider the gallery, but that's just my own two cents. Looks good! --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm taking a break from it now, but will probably have another push later. Johnbod 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outstanding Issues

I looked at this article recently, and I do think it is a good article in some ways. It is well written, comprehensible, appears to cover its subject very well and has many fine illustrations.

But there are some issues that would need to be corrected. Otherwise, I'll list the article for GA Review.

Following Wikipedia:What is a good article?

  • The lead section does not fill its purpose, per criteria 1b.
Done
Done
  • Please make it clear what reference material was used in what place, per criteria 2b. Instead of the last note This article incorporates content from the 1728 Cyclopaedia, a publication in the public domain. (funerary section at end only) , please put a footnote at the funerary section, that gives the 1728 Cyclopaedia as a reference.
Done
  • The text following the sentence "There were now many ways of wearing, and indeed carrying, this most complex and adaptable of hats: [list]" warrants a reference
references are at illustrations showing the various ways.
  • The sentence of the accustations against Joan of Arc needs a reference (per criteria 2b)
Done
  • Need references to the sections "Christmas chaperons" , "Decline" and "Funerary ornaments on horses"
1st would be several refs to individual works (many in article as it is), 2nd has one, 3rd done Johnbod 01:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That should be it, I think...

Fred-Chess 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks - that's all do-able. Really I'd like to boot the funerary horse bit out to its own stub, as it's a different form of the word & doesn't really have much relation with the rest of this. What I think it also needs is a few illustrations of the early forms from illuminated manuscripts; only the Van der Weyden illumination was specially procured for this (thanks PKM!)because the panel paintings with the later forms are so well represented on Commons. Not so illuminations. I'm doing up Byzantine dress at the moment but will return to this. BadlydrawnJeff seemed to think the Gallery was OTT, so I'm glad you seem to like it - I think thats where WP can really score - no print source is ever going to be that heavily illustrated. Johnbod 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The wrong hole

Could someone please rephrase this section heading? It's just too unintentionally comical to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. :-D

Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

unintentionally? It is used in the literature & it's hard to think of an alternative. Johnbod 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm only referring to the section heading. It just flies in your face as being... uhm... humorously obscene.
Peter Isotalo 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

The gallery here is too large, and the gallery at Wikicommons is only a few images, it should be the other way around. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Gallery at Commons is really on a different subject; only a couple of the images there are relevant to the subject of this article (& many do not show chaperons as such on any definition). The Gallery here is as large as it needs to be. The captions cannot be replicated on Commons, and form part of this article. I am sympathetic to people disliking huge and random galleries with no added value in the captions, but some articles on art and iconography demand galleries to be covered properly. Johnbod 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I can follow that line of reasoning the captions are detailed. I kept the commons link there as they are both galleries in the gallery section and it will hopefully encourage users to upload images to commons and use it as a general repository and display place. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The gallery is definitely too large, good comments or no. An article on art or fashion isn't supposed to be exempt from restrictions on galleries. We still have to abide by a minimum of summary style. The gallery could be reduced to fewer examples without much loss to the article. If anything, I'd try to focus a bit more on the image layout, which is now a bit awkward. For one thing, the images used in the text are disproportionally large. I'm going to suggest a few changes.
Peter Isotalo 11:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Some size reduction if you must, but I was most unimpressed by your picture switches, which I have reverted on masse. The gallery is in chronological order, the article pictures relate to the text, and you left images facing off the page. I suggest this is deferred until after the inevitable merge with capuccio. Perhaps you could specify which parts of Summary style you believe are relevant here. People are always quoting various policies against the use of galleries at all, but I have yet to see any specific policy on the matter. Johnbod 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The images are completely dominating the article, you're not even making an attempt to limit your choice of pictures and now you're complaining about pictures "facing off the page"? Have you even noticed that the image layout is rather shoddy? Some of the pics are very large and placed in the middle, rather than at the top of, sections. Philip the Good barges right into the list of styles if you have a broader screen resolution, for example. The tall carried chaperon-pic stretches over two sections. Overall, left-sided pictures are often very good at interrupting text and the general layout.
But, hey, it's just me quoting stupid guidelines, right? :-/
Peter Isotalo 00:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reduced the number of images as I recall - by up to four. The aim was to keep P the G (by the way if you really want a poor layout to complain about, have a look at his article now) out of the list - please move as necessary. I have nothing against left-sided photos (like the tall one) but facing-outwards is bad. Despite being asked, you neither quote from nor refer to any "guidelines". Johnbod 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't link to guidelines as an argument per se, but to inform about what the general community consensus. Otherwise we're actually supposed to discuss this among ourselves, not throw paragraphs at one another. But it feels like you've already decided exactly what this article should (not) look like, whether that be beneficial to others or not, so I don't think we'll be getting anywhere.
Peter Isotalo 06:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Two of your posts have referred to guidelines, but as I've said above, I just don't believe there are any guidelines that say what you seem to think they do - this is not the first time I've encountered this. I'm open to discussion, but I certainly didn't think the changes you made improved the article. Johnbod 12:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no sign of open discussion, just rather irrelevant pedantry concerning the visuals.
Peter Isotalo 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Well discuss away then - I think I have made a number of unresponded-to points above. Johnbod 15:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA/R

It seems this article was not properly listed on the WP:GA page whenever it was passed, but since Fred-Chess seems to of disputed this articles status, said he'd put up a GA/R which seems to of not happened, and because I can't tell if the concerns he seemed to have were ever resolved, i've filed a WP:GA/R on this article to make its status certain. Homestarmy 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I recall it being properly listed. But at the same time I had decided to fail it (without putting it on hold), someone else passed it... so I posted some remarks.
Fred-Chess 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
delistedSumoeagle179 23:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Euler

I recall that on Euler's biography, he's wearing a similar headdress in his famous portrait. Perhaps, given the notability of Euler, that image should be included on this page. -69.47.186.226 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That one is a turban - often worn at home to prevent C17/18 gents catching a cold with their wigs off. Johnbod 21:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)