Talk:English embroidery

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English embroidery article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

English embroidery has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 8, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 2, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that English embroidery (example pictured) includes styles called Opus Anglicanum, stumpwork, crewel work and art needlework?

Textile arts Mid‑importance

	Clothing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Textile arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of textile arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Textile artsWikipedia:WikiProject Textile artsTemplate:WikiProject Textile artsTextile arts articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Congratulations

What a fantastic article! Jasper33 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:English embroidery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial review under way.

Reviewer: km5 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A clear, interesting and well documented article up to wikipedia grammar and style standards. --km5 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - PKM (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

The article contains numerous uncited statements and paragraphs.
The "Modern period" section is disorganised and does not contain much information on post-1910 practices.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? If not, should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It contains a few, for example the bit on the Butler-Bowden Cope. But this has an article, with a link to the V&As page. If you are so "concerned" you should consider DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT YOURSELF. I'm getting fed up with your frequent demands, turning up on my (34K) watchlist, for others to do work. I daresay the last century has been a rather quiet time in English embroidery, and the modern section seems to me to meet GA standards. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: I think the modern section could be expanded, but I think the multiple uncited paragraphs cause this article not to meet the GA criteria. Are you (or anyone else reading this) interested in finding sources for this information, or should this be posted to GAR to see if someone else steps up with the increased attention it might get there? Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: There is still uncited text in the article, and no edits to add any information to the "Modern period" part of the article. Is this a project you are interested in working on, or should I post this to GAR to see if another subject-matter expert is interested in adopting this article? Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, try User:PKM. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any material edits to this article since 2020, so I don’t know why this is coming up now. I am not available to edit Wikipedia at any length these days. However, if there are any statements that you are specifically concerned about, please slap a “citation needed” tag on those particular statements and I’ll try to add more references. - PKM (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: I added cn tags to places where I think they are needed: recently GA added in the criteria that citations are normally needed at the end of every paragraph, so that should be evaluated to see if that is necessary in this article. Feel free to ping me if you have questions or concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll take a look this week. Thanks. PKM (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720:Done! - PKM (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: The beginning of the article has great detail and formatting. The "Glorious Revolution to the Great War" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION and the "Modern Period" has paragraphs of widely various length that should either be merged (the first two) or split (the third). Any additional information in the "Modern Period" section would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]