Talk:Swivel weave
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Swivel weave article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Swivel weave appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
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) 18:27, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the origins of swivel weaving can be traced back to the Ming dynasty of China? Source: https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Encyclopaedia_of_the_History_of_Science/raKRY3KQspsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA959&printsec=frontcover
Created by RAJIVVASUDEV (talk). Self-nominated at 04:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Swivel weave; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Ancient China? Yuan and Ming are not ancient. See Outline of ancient China. BorgQueen (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Nominated on the same day it was created, and is about 2000 bytes, satisfying date and length criteria. There are no copyvio concerns, and the article is referenced and has a neutral tone; I will assume good faith for the Operath book Textile, which I cannot access. Hook is reasonably short and properly sourced. There is a QPQ provided; it is a quick-fail review (not recent enough), which may or may not qualify per current QPQ standards. I'll leave that for the promoter to decide. (I never use my quick-fail reviews for QPQ, which is why I cite this as a possible issue.) Mindmatrix 19:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: An approved review in WP:DYKCRIT is not essentially required, but if it is needed, I can provide another. Thank you for the review. RV (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV:, a full review is required and Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Boxing (Qing dynasty) is not a full review as it did not address whether the article was sourced and neutral and whether the hook was cited and interesting. @Mindmatrix: asked for clarification on what a full review means at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Minimal QPQ. TSventon (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TSventon and Mindmatrix: I understand that the ambiguity was about a failed review, not a full review. But yes, you are right, I ignored a few things because it was failing on a large scale. What should I do now? Please help. ThanksRV (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV:, I would recommend providing another review as QPQ. There were different opinions on WT:DYK, but if an article isn't new enough for DYK, there is no point in doing a full review as it will still fail. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TSventon and Mindmatrix: Well noted that and no issues. AGF, I have replaced Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Boxing (Qing dynasty) with Template:Did you know nominations/Allegory of Peace (Jan Lievens). I hope it is good. Thanks RV (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV:, I would recommend providing another review as QPQ. There were different opinions on WT:DYK, but if an article isn't new enough for DYK, there is no point in doing a full review as it will still fail. TSventon (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @TSventon and Mindmatrix: I understand that the ambiguity was about a failed review, not a full review. But yes, you are right, I ignored a few things because it was failing on a large scale. What should I do now? Please help. ThanksRV (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @RAJIVVASUDEV:, a full review is required and Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Boxing (Qing dynasty) is not a full review as it did not address whether the article was sourced and neutral and whether the hook was cited and interesting. @Mindmatrix: asked for clarification on what a full review means at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Minimal QPQ. TSventon (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
