Talk:History of silk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article History of silk has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 28, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Textile Arts WikiProject
Textile arts Portal
This article is within the scope of the Textile Arts WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within textile arts.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified History of silk as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...


[edit] Franco-centrism

Is it just me, or is this article is becoming very "French"-centric? I know that the "history of silk" article is translated from the French featured article. But isn't it a bit unencyclopedic to translate a foreign article and keep the article's perspectives even when it is in another language? Obviously the French entry will devote more contents to French productions of the silk. But do you think its too much? Do you think this article should create its own perspectives? What do you think? It's just something I've noticed.--Balthazarduju 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really think this article is problematically Franco-centric. The section on the French silk trade seems to me to be just as relevant as the French Revolution would be in a history of democracy; that is very relevant. It almost seems as if the bias is slightly more towards Italy, but once again, I think it is simply the historical matter-of-fact. The one area I would like to reduce this is in the images; they seem a bit too focused on France, so go ahead and change them if you can find equivalent pictures from elsewhere (something from Italy would be nice). -Oreo Priest 04:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
French production of silk was number one in the world during the 18th and 19th centuries.Aliesin

[edit] Translation

I'd just like to share this link with you guys. It's a Google search through a multilingual textile terms dictionary, you will probably find it useful. -Oreo Priest 05:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This article is quite good already, but still needs a bit of work to attain GA status. I will list areas that need to be improved below.

1) The picture of Justinan's copyright tag is no longer valid Y Done -Oreo Priest 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

2) The lead needs to incorporate much more of the article's body. It should be a brief summary of the entire article. As it stands now, it is far too short. It should probably be made four times as long as it currently is. Y Done -Oreo Priest 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

3) A few areas are thin on references. My rule of thumb is that each paragraph should have at least one reference, although there are exceptions to this. I will list the areas that I feel need more referencing.

The second paragraph of reciprocal influences. Y Done -Oreo Priest 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A more abundant luxury Y Done -Oreo Priest 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of Decline in the European silk industry Y Done -Oreo Priest 15:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

4) There is some information lacking in the 20th century section. I would like to know, for example, when Japan became the foremost producer of silk and why it lost its lead to China. There is a lot of information from 1990 onwards, but very little about the rest of the 20th century. I think a brief expansion of this section is needed.

I've given it quite a significant expansion.Y Done -Oreo Priest 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that's everything, unless you've found something since then. -Oreo Priest 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Once these issues are fixed, I would be thrilled to promote this article. Zeus1234 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's done now, unless there's anything more you'd like. -Oreo Priest 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend you do a quick copyedit of the article and remove all the redlinks. After that, I'll go over it again and make there are no errors, and make sure it flows nicely. Then a promotion should be in order. Zeus1234 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The copyedit I agree with, the removal of red links I do not. Due to systemic bias, Wikipedia does not have good coverage on textile topics. I have asked a prominent member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts (namely User:PKM) to look them over to see if either the articles exist but the links are slightly off or if they simply don't exist. Regardless, the red links represent articles which should legitimately be created in the future, and which would be helpful to the reader, and thus a deficiency of Wikipedia, not the article itself. I have removed the least likely/deserving to receive their own article, though I believe everything else should stay.
Thoughts? -Oreo Priest 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that if you want to keep the redlinks that you should create stub articles for them. Otherwise there doesn't seem to any point in having them. They just clutter up the article. Who knows when someone will get around to creating an article, and when they do, they can simply do a search and create links where they are needed in previously written articles. Zeus1234 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. PKM has just gone over it, and I'll remove everything that she didn't fix. -Oreo Priest 05:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The article has now been thoroughly copyedited, so I think it's ready now. -Oreo Priest 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)