Talk:Navajo rug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Navajo rug has been listed as one of the Arts 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.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 31, 2007.
March 4, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:

This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
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.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid-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.

A public domain color photograph of Navajo Rug would improve this article.-Doktor Faustus 1 June 2007

I own several rugs -- I'll add this to my "to do" soon list. WBardwin 05:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
One has been added from the commons. - PKM (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] MERGE with Navajo people

This is pretty silly---85% of this is taken from Navajo people. Nominate to MERGE immediately. --Dylanfly 19:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been expanded now with more outside citations. DurovaCharge! 20:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List moved from article

I've found considerable differences in terminology among different references on this topic. The eye dazzler style is widely known as such, but many of the others here aren't mentioned in the sources at my disposal. Moving this here for possible verification and expansion. DurovaCharge! 06:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Styles

There are many styles of rugs.

  • Chief
  • Crystal
  • Eye Dazzler - covered
  • Ganado Red
  • Klagetoh
  • Non Regional
  • Pictorial
  • Raised Outline
  • Storm Pattern
  • Teec Nos Pos
  • Two Greyhills
  • Wide Ruins
  • Yei Be Chei

[edit] Prices

The article mentions high prices in 1850 and high prices currently, so I set down to some arithmetic. Doing math is sometimes considered a violation of WP:NOR and in this case I can sort of see why, but it sheds some light on the topic and detailing it here should spare the next person. According to the link in the article [1] current rugs sell around $300-$1000. According to [2] the mid-1800's US used a bimetallic standard gold = 22.5 grains/$, silver=371 grains/$. Using 0.065 grams/grain and 1 troy ounce = 31.1034768 grams I work out $50 US = either $243.37 (in silver) or $1957.58 (in gold). The substantial difference can be traced back to the Crime of 1873.

The bottom line: calculating exact inflation over centuries is a job requiring experts, and you'd need a source to claim that $50 in the 1800's meant any particular amount of modern money. But in a very crude, subjective sense it appears that the cost of a Navajo rug is roughly the same as it's ever been. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principle image

The principle image seems a bit blurred to me. Perhaps it's just my monitor or graphic cards, or the prescription in my contact lenses, but a burnt umber and black weave needs to be shown with really strong unsharp masks. Primary colors always seem to have a bit of their complements surrounding them, and this makes the lines appear blurred even when they're not. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll switch that around. The Library of Congress archives had a good vintage image of a family by a weaving loom, and although the restoration work might not be very visible I actually spent about five days on that print. DurovaCharge! 20:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tags

I've removed some requests for citations regarding material that is in fact referenced. It is not necessary to have an inline citation for every sentence of a paragraph, when multiple successive statements are verified through the same source cited at the end of the paragraph. Nor is it customary to provide inline citations in the introduction for material that is adequately referenced in greater detail in the article body. DurovaCharge! 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The writing, as far as I can tell, is very good
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Here's where the problem is. Even though not every sentence needs a reference, I like to see every paragraph end with a source. So, just put a ref where the "Citation necessary" tag is, and that should fix it.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Amazing amount of information found for this
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Most everything is very good, but I really can't pass it with that citation necessary tag. All it needs is a reference there, and it will pass. Until then, I've put the article On-hold. Thank you for your hard work in improving this article, and good luck in improving it to GA status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 14:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work on that. DurovaCharge! 14:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, good. And again, other than that on issue, this is a very good article. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point the article is completely sourced. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

All of the issues have been addressed, and thus, it passes GA. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)