Talk:London shrunk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 04:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/London shrunk; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: No - No.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on 12 April, and meets the length requirement. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for—though I have not been able to access all of them. Earwig reveals no overt copyvio, but there is a fair amount of WP:Close paraphrasing throughout. The article does not seem neutral to me; it reads rather heavily like an endorsement, and despite outlining the advantages of technique and describing it in the past tense, there is no mention of any drawbacks (besides cost, I suppose) or how/why it was superseded. I don't think the hook is interesting. QPQ has been done. Some comments about the content:

  • The article is not consistent in its use of 'single' and "double" quotation marks. # Removed unnecessary quotation marks.
  • I've tweaked a bunch of links in the references to lead directly to the relevant pages.
  • The article mostly uses "London shrunk", but there are also a few instances of "London shrinkage" and "London shrinking", without much apparent rhyme or reason. It is likewise variously given with and without quotation marks. # Corrected.
  • London shrunk was an 18th-century textile finishing process designed to reduce production strains from wool fabrics. – WP:Close paraphrasing. # Reworded.
  • The London shrunk process enhances the handle and feel of treated fabrics, resulting in a superior texture and overall quality. – that's rather an endorsement. # Removed.
  • It's not clear to me that a garment undergoing pressing to hold its shape (what the source says) and ironing to remove wrinkles (what the article says) are synonymous. # Pressing and Ironing are different.
  • The process imparts the better handle and feel to the treated fabrics. – repetition, rather an endorsement, and not entirely clear what it means. # removed repetitive.
  • The "Method" section contains a fair bit of repetition, WP:Close paraphrasing, and seemingly contradictory information. The structure is also a bit odd. It looks like it was written piecemeal without much consideration for the overall finished article. # Corrected.
  • To facilitate the removal of moisture from the blankets – going by the source, the point was not getting the moisture out of the blankets but into the fabric.# Corrected.

Ping RAJIVVASUDEV. TompaDompa (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa Thank you for your comments. Please allow me some time to make the necessary corrections. RV (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TompaDompa I have made the necessary corrections as per the comments and removed any images or puffery language that could be interpreted as an endorsement. Please refer to the revisions in # and take a look at ALT1 as well. Thank you. RV (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's take another look.

  • ALT1 far exceeds the maximum hook length of 200 characters and is not particularly interesting either.# ALT 2 provided.
  • There is still a fair amount of WP:Close paraphrasing. For instance, the source says A wet wool or cotton blanket is placed on a long platform, a layer of fabric is spread on it, and alternate layers of blanket and fabric are built up. and the article says It began with a damp wool or cotton blanket placed onto an elongated platform, followed by the placement of a layer of fabric over it, and then repeating the process with alternating layers of blanket and fabric. Another example is where the source says This setup of fabric, boards, and plates is kept under 3000 pounds of pressure for 10 to 12 hours. and the article says This arrangement of fabrics, pressboards, and plates was then subjected to a pressure of 3000 pounds for a duration of 10 to 12 hours. # Trimmed.
  • The overall structure of the article seems a bit odd. This is not a problem for DYK, but you might want to think about which pieces of information go together and what order to present them in. I would intuitively expect advantages and disadvantages to be presented one after the other, for instance. # Corrected as per comments.
  • I would suggest you try to combine the first three sentences of the WP:LEAD into one or two sentences. This would reduce redundancy and probably help with WP:Close paraphrasing as well.
  • The first paragraph after the WP:LEAD is basically just one long WP:Close paraphrase of the source. I would suggest quoting it verbatim in a similar way to how it's done at List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year instead. # Corrected as per comments.
  • The London shrunk process was used to improve the hand feel of processed fabrics, resulting in a refined texture and an overall improvement in quality. – I am unable to access the cited source. Is this an advantage of this particular process compared to other ones or a general feature of preshrinking? If it's the latter, it doesn't belong in the section discussing the advantages of this process. I would also probably edit this for brevity so it mentions texture but not feel or overall quality, since this is kind of redundant.# This is what sources say. Handfeel and texture both are critical parameters of a fabric. Hence not redundant.
  • I think the neutrality issue has mostly been resolved now.

@RAJIVVASUDEV: TompaDompa (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa, Revised as per comments. Kindly see, if it is good now? Thanks RV (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

@RAJIVVASUDEV: TompaDompa (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ TompaDompa I really appreciate your patience. Kindly have a look. Regards RV (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RAJIVVASUDEV: At the risk of sounding a bit harsh, I don't think you quite understand the concept of WP:Close paraphrasing. The first paragraph after the WP:LEAD that defines "shrinkage resistance" and "residual shrinkage" is basically the same text as the source's, but slightly reworded—the same information is presented in the same order using similar phrasings and sentence structure. In that case, fixing it is trivial by actually quoting the source verbatim and presenting it as a glossary in a {{quote box}}. The "Method" section on the other hand has gone back and forth between being too similar to the source and too dissimilar (i.e. not properly reflecting what the source says). Right now, it's a blend. It appears to be a three-step process: dampening, drying, and pressing. I would suggest you describe each of those steps in a separate paragraph using your own words. Several of the sources currently cited in the article describe the process in lesser or greater detail: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. If you use them all, the risk of WP:Close paraphrasing is minimized. Depending on how long the paragraphs about each step end up being, it may be appropriate to merge them. TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ TompaDompa Shrinkage resistance and residual shrinkage appear the same as in the text because these are technical terms and there are a limited number of ways to say the same thing. And I do not want to lose the exact meaning. For the method, it's a very simple procedure that doesn't require separate paragraphs. Made the necessary edits as per comments. Kindly check. Thanks RV (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly only a WP:LIMITED number of ways of stating the technical definition—though "retain its original dimensions" could for instance be rephrased more informally as "not change shape or size"—but that's not the only part that is overly similar to the source. The source says

Shrinkage resistance is the ability of a fabric to retain its original dimensions throughout care. It is related to the fabric's reaction to moisture or heat. Items that shrink may no longer be attractive or suitable for their original end use. Residual shrinkage refers to additional shrinkage that may occur after the first care cycle.

while the article said

Shrinkage resistance in textiles is their capacity to maintain their original dimensions after laundering. This quality is closely tied to how the fabric reacts to moisture or heat. Fabrics that shrink during laundering or after exposure to heat may lose their aesthetic appeal and may not be suitable for their intended purpose. Residual shrinkage pertains to any further shrinking that may occur after the initial care cycle.

That's the same four sentences with slight alterations, while retaining the overall paragraph structure, sentence structure, and much of the phrasing. Anyway, I tweaked the quote box to the exact phrasing used by the source and adjusted the formatting somewhat. By the way, shrinkage resistance could probably be a stand-alone article if you feel like writing it. At any rate, ALT2 is ready. TompaDompa (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_shrunk&oldid=1203741270"