Talk:Sprang

GA Review

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

A good article, but a few improvements could be made. More references and inline citations would be great, especially in the lead section. NPOV: no problems here. The article is also stable. Though the article is short, it is concise. It sticks to the topic, while giving useful facts to keep the reader interested. All-in-all, a satisfactory article, yet one that will require some work before being passed as a GA. --Jordan ^Contribs 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the feedback. I checked with a couple of editors who have over 100 GAs between and was specifically recommended to avoid citations in the lead--as long as the information is cited in the main body of the article. That's what I believe I've done here, although any specific omissions I'd be glad to address immediately (after reading the same paragraph 20 times it gets tricky to spot these things on one's own). Regarding the rest, I've been a little old fashioned I guess in that I've followed the convention that if sentences 1, 2, and 3 of a paragraph all derive from the same source then one puts the citation at the end of sentence 3. Over at FAC some of the editors have taken to citing every single sentence despite the redundancy. Is that what you want here? Every line is already sourced--the only difference is what convention. Thank you again for your review and please clarify. Best, Durova^Charge! 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware of the "citations in the lead section" point. I think I might have to brush up on my knowledge of the finer points of the manual of style. If the reference style is fine, then you need not worry. The information is thoroughly referenced, and all the sources are valid.It's a shame there is no online resource provided for World Textiles: A Visual Guide to Traditional by John Gillow and Bryan Sentance. I looked for a PDF file, but was unable to find one. I would have been quite interested to look into that.

• There is just one sentence I would like you to clarify: it seems a bit jumbled. "Fiber manipulation is done with the fibers with the fingers, also using one or more rods to prevent unraveling." If you could fix the sentence a bit? Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 17:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a beautiful book if you happen to find it, and pretty good for filling in some of the gaps and expanding the substubs in our textile arts articles. I'll see what else I can do to clarify the technique section. It's the sort of area where someone who knows the field and is experienced with related media gets to a certain point and thinks Aha! I see how they did this and it's obvious why it's nearly obsolete. Created the demonstration on the loom to help convey that, but you're very right--the text itself could do better. I'll be right on that in a few hours. Thanks again. Durova^Charge! 18:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The relevant info regarding the lead/intro is at WP:LEADCITE. Generally if the same info is cited to WP:RS/WP:V sources later in the body of the article, it is redundant and unnecessary to cite the same info in the lead. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See the WP:FA The General in His Labyrinth for an example of a nice way to cite using "notes", and then include the full reference in a references section. This article is shorter so it would be easier to reformat it that way. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Have obtained a copy of 'The Techniques of Sprang' by Peter Collingwood, which is the definitive reference work on this topic and (sadly) is long out of print and used booksellers charge an arm and a leg for it. Will be expanding the article with information primarily from Collingwood. Citations will follow. Skrydstrup (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

A New Voice Enters, Sept 2017

I also have and study the Collingwood book, and am also a student of modern Sprang scholar and technique revivalist Carol James, whose works on sprang are in print: RuTemple (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC) I would like to clarify and add some information to the Sprang article, and append a draft as follows:

During the late Eighteenth and early Nineteenth Centuries a military fashion of decorative sprang sashes in silk known as faja in Spain gained international popularity among ranking military and distinguished civilians, the fashion spreading to northern Europe and to North America. A sprang sash worn baldrick style diagonally across from the shoulder was a distinguishing ornament of rank on the battlefield. Major General Edward Braddock was carried mortally wounded from the battlefield on his sprang sash as a stretcher, and was said to have passed this sash to George Washington who kept and used it for the remainder of his life. The red silk Braddock Sash is held at George Washington’s Mount Vernon, and has been replicated for the museum by modern sprang scholar and artist Carol James.

Some of my questions include whether video and website references may be used in citation. If no, Carol's article may well suffice, as it includes snippets of her recreation-in-progress at the time of the Braddock Sash for Mount Vernon (photos in the article of the work in red silk).

There is, notably, a pre-Columbian sprang shirt found in Arizona, dated 700 - 1200 C.E., held by the Arizona State Museum, and whose commissioned reproduction is detailed in articles in PLY Magazine , and in Ms. James' keynote presentation to the Braids 2016 international conference (clearly this portion is not-yet-formatted sandboxing).

I'm a long-time technical, format and style, and pre-press editor of academic dissertations, and a fiber artist interested in complex braiding and narrow wares, and would like to bring this background to strengthening Wikipedia's textile coverage. I hope to collaborate and seek advice, and will now apply myself to a close perusal of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

RuTemple (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)