This article has come a long way from the last time I nominated it foolishly too early for FAC. Not this time. Thanks to me kick starting the new look & to Bridesmill & Co for perfecting eveything, I finally think it is time to resubmit. The article was accepted into the release of Version 0.5 & was rated as an A-class article (That's one away from FA! Yay!) by the team. The article is a good representative of Wikipedia & of hard work & diverse knowledge. The article goes into most aspects of jewellery, & is planned out in a unique style. There are ample pictures & it is overally well referenced. I hope you enjoy the article & feel the same way I do about it. Thanks. Spawn Man10:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the geographic content covered is lopsided. Too much content on European history, while Africa is absent, only India and China are covered in Asia and the Pacific gets a small mention. =Nichalp«Talk»=16:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the geographic content is a bit lop-sided. I have corrected the absence of Africa, as Egypt is part of Africa, although more closely related to other Middle East countries. The reason for the absence of jewellery in the rest of Africa is that contenbt thought of as too broad, (such as a paragraph on slave beads & on South Africa's blood diamonds), was moved to other sections of the article. For the Asian reference, there is also the Paduang tribe mentioned for its body modification uses of jewellery. I think it would be unwise to try & mention every culture that's ever exsisted, as the page would be both long & repetitive. For example, in New Zealand, we have much the same jewellery as Australia & America for example. To write about all three countries & say the same things for their jewellery again & again would be pointless. The jewellery of Asia is very much the same; elegant, ceremonious & revered. China ruled much of Asia at one point, so their jewellery styles influenced much of Asia, thus making it all seems similar. This too also happened in Europe when the Romans conquered most of the continent & Roman styles were adapted throughout. Again we also see this happening with the Incas & south americans when the Spanish invaded; they adapted many of their designs. My point is, is that we should aim for a diverse selection of cultures who each use their jewellery differently, rather than add every culture whop have similar designs (which could get quite boring). Your suggestions are good, but I hope you may understand my rationale after reading this. I will definitely expand the Australasia section. I did have a referenced paragraph on the Australian opal trade, but it was deleted for some reason. Thanks a bunch! Spawn Man00:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of doing a historical analysis, (I don't see a drastic chronological evolution of jewellery), you can break it up into geographical zones, covering all six continents. Take a look at the article on Butter which is a general topic but covers the topic on a global scale without going too much into detail over each country. Secondly, what about the usage of jewellery in animals? I've read that primates and birds also use natural jewellery. This could be added perhaps as a sentence somewhere? PS will be busy till next weekend. =Nichalp«Talk»=13:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found a weird caption in that Butter article: "Butter is regulary found in modern Kitchens" - quite apart from the two typos, that has to be the most pointless picture caption I've ever seen. I've chaged it. Carcharoth22:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Call me stupid, but I'd like someone to explain what they want on the article exactly. I'm not one to take hints, so if you continue like this, I'll never get it done. But tell me what you want exactly & it'll be done in days or hours. For example, I would need something like this:
Cat anatomy.
Cat whiskers.
Cat noses.
Cat eyes.
Fedding habits.
Mice.
Beast mice they eat... etc etc.
If you could swap cats with jewellery & how you would like me to rearrange the text & section to your requirements, it will be done. If everyone could come to a sort of concensus it would really really help. Thanks a lot. Spawn Man23:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - too many uncited sweeping and general statements. Some examples:
"many items of jewellery, such as brooches and buckles originated as purely functional items, became more decorated over time, and in some cases became purely art objects as their functional requirement disappeared." - says who?
I was on an extended leave from wikipedia with a couple of other editors editing this page. I referenced every paragraph apart from the one with slave beads, which I got from here. As to why my references for this paragraph was deleted, I will never know. I've rephrased & referenced the sentence.
"As early as the 13th century, Murano glass and Murano beads became known as the finest glass in the known world." - source? Also, repetition of 'known' is jarring.
I've rewritten the sentence to a well known fact, rather than speculation.
"Islam for instance considers the wearing of gold by men as Haram" - it is annoying for a reader to have to click the link to find out what Haram means. A short explanation is all that is needed, and should be in the article, either in the prose, or as a footnote. See Wikipedia:The_perfect_article - "the perfect article is nearly self-contained; it includes essential information and terminology, and is comprehensible by itself, without requiring significant reading of other articles."
I 100% agree with your point. I myself find it annoying, almost makes you feel dumb. I've changed the word linked to a commonly known word. Again, this & most of the other problems here were created whilst I was absent.
"It has shaped the course of history and provides various insights into how ancient cultures worked. - you fail to say anywhere how jewellery has shaped the course of history. If you say things like this, you need to expand on it and cite what someone else says about this.
Deleted that speculation al together. Good job pointing that out.
"The first signs of established jewellery making in Ancient Egypt was around 3,000-5,000 years ago." - source?
Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced.
"Egyptian jewellery was predominantly made in large workshops attached to temples or palaces." - this needs a source, and this is a one-sentence paragraph. Not good. Some of the sections come across as bullet-point sentences joined together to make a paragraph, rather than flowing prose telling a narrative about the subject.
Again, it was referenced, reference had been deleted. Now referenced. Joined this sentence up with a bigger paragraph too.
Picture missing from the "Jewellery in Greece" section.
I'm not too sure what you mean by this? I checked & all pictures seem to be there? Maybe you could explain?
It's appearing for me. Maybe it is something to do with a glitch on your computer? I could replace the pic with one you can see though if it will cause you to continue to object? Thanbks.... Spawn Man00:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "In popular culture" section is too short. Either expand or (preferable) get rid of it. At the moment, the shorter sections drag the article down.
Ridded. :)
Overall, some good bits, but many bad bits as well. Needs tidying and tightening up. Nice images though, and I'd be interested to see how much better it could be in a few months. Carcharoth22:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you for your valuable insight into what was wrong with the article. My question is: Why wait a few months when I can do it in days? I'll be adding an extension onto the Pacific section & will be doing general copyedits all round. Hopefully I can get more stuff on Africa & such too... Thanks... Spawn Man23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Object. Although many sections are well written and thorough, the sections on Modern jewellery and Jewellery and body modification are sorely lacking. Kaldari03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Initially I disagreed with the above comment but on further ruminating I feel they could be expanded, just not sure how. In modern jewellery I recall plasting and modelling clay type thingies, especially with broaches and things. Also, there is scope for some thing on body-mod things but this is something I know little aboutCas Liber20:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changes: I have significantly expanded many section of the article. These include; Jewellery in the pacific - generally expanded. Australia & New Zealand cited & expanded. Modern jewellery - Rewritten and a small expansion. I don't feel there is much more to say about how much better modern jewellery is etc. Jewellery & body modification - Added cited section about hooks & trance induced piercings. Hope this helps everyone? Thanks, Spawn Man08:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
