Talk:History of silk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHistory 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 28, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Franco-centrism[edit]

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)[reply]

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.Well i think that silk worms had a lot to do with silk paper in the 18-19 century

Translation[edit]

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)

GA Review[edit]

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1) The picture of Justinan's copyright tag is no longer valid  Done -Oreo Priest 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.  Done -Oreo Priest 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Done -Oreo Priest 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's everything, unless you've found something since then. -Oreo Priest 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think it's done now, unless there's anything more you'd like. -Oreo Priest 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The article has now been thoroughly copyedited, so I think it's ready now. -Oreo Priest 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chartres cathedral[edit]

Just a comment that I don't think the image from the stained glass window at Chartres cathedral represents a spinning wheel. Rather I think that it is a sharpening wheel and it is being used to sharpen the axe being held next to it. This window represents the builders, and there is no indication of textile activity near the wheel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.20.97 (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Oreo Priest talk 15:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of silk/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I find this an informative article. However, as an insect pathologist I take some issue with the following: "The first silkworm diseases began to appear in 1845, creating an epidemic." Agostino Bassi was stimulated to look at Beauveria basssiana because of the problems this was causing to the silk industry long before 1845. This needs to be corrected. Nigel L. Hywel-Jones

Last edited at 15:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of silk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:

https://www.silkroadfoundation.org


This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.


The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:

http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf

From the outset, there has been no formal process of peer review, such as one expects in the standard academic journals. We still solicit articles (a task which largely has devolved on me over the years), though we also receive (but have not been overwhelmed by) unsolicited submissions.

Decisions on what to publish (as with any journal) ultimately rest with the editor, who in this case, for better or worse, has acted as the peer reviewer. I often see what I think is gold in material that could never find its way into a standard academic publication. But the perils of rarely seeking outside opinions may mean things slip through without acknowledgement that a subject has been thoroughly treated elsewhere.

The lack of formal peer review does have the unfortunate consequence that junior scholars hoping to advance in their profession may avoid us, since their promotion will depend in the first instance on peer reviewed publication, however excellent (and widely cited) a piece might be which we would publish. Yet in some cases where there is a premium for academics in other countries to publish in a respected journal in English, we have been able to provide just such an opportunity. Many of the senior scholars we have solicited for contributions have politely refused to write for us, since they are already over-committed [...]

So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals.

To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog.

The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff.

Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who discovered it???[edit]

He/She 180.94.34.213 (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_silk&oldid=1214014648"