This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chaperon (headgear) 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 Chaperon (headgear) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from Chaperon (headgear) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chaperon (headgear) was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: March 27, 2007. |
Cappuccio has been merged here
I'm not sure that I agree with you re apparent turbans being chaperons in reality. It would be nice if we had some citations to settle the matter either way. I found very little on the history of European turbans online, but I did find pictures of seeming turbans that didn't have the characteristic "wattles" and liripipes of chaperons. I just now paged through my one costume book, the Bruhn and Tilke pictorial history of costume and I found descriptions like these, for plate 46, headdresses, Burgundy, 15th century:
There were also a fair number of pictures of women who seemed to be wearing turbans. Some of them seem to be peasant women; it may have just been a way of protecting the hair and keeping it out of the way.
One would have to look at surviving costumes, instead of just pictures, to be really sure, I would think.
I revised for vagueness. If you have a costume history library, or access to a good one, see if you can find some cites. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Zora 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
... is the perfect example of why I love Wikipedia so much. It's downright amazing that these wonderfully detailed articles about obscure topics get written! Thank you for it! mstroeck 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Right! I love articles that make me look for things in museums etc. that I hadn't even noticed before. -- AndreasPraefcke 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Passed. May require some better cleanup/expansion if you try to bring it to FA level, and I'd reconsider the gallery, but that's just my own two cents. Looks good! -- badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm taking a break from it now, but will probably have another push later. Johnbod 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at this article recently, and I do think it is a good article in some ways. It is well written, comprehensible, appears to cover its subject very well and has many fine illustrations.
But there are some issues that would need to be corrected. Otherwise, I'll list the article for GA Review.
Following Wikipedia:What is a good article?
That should be it, I think...
Fred- Chess 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please rephrase this section heading? It's just too unintentionally comical to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. :-D
Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
unintentionally? It is used in the literature & it's hard to think of an alternative. Johnbod 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The gallery here is too large, and the gallery at Wikicommons is only a few images, it should be the other way around. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Gallery at Commons is really on a different subject; only a couple of the images there are relevant to the subject of this article (& many do not show chaperons as such on any definition). The Gallery here is as large as it needs to be. The captions cannot be replicated on Commons, and form part of this article. I am sympathetic to people disliking huge and random galleries with no added value in the captions, but some articles on art and iconography demand galleries to be covered properly. Johnbod 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I can follow that line of reasoning the captions are detailed. I kept the commons link there as they are both galleries in the gallery section and it will hopefully encourage users to upload images to commons and use it as a general repository and display place. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems this article was not properly listed on the WP:GA page whenever it was passed, but since Fred-Chess seems to of disputed this articles status, said he'd put up a GA/R which seems to of not happened, and because I can't tell if the concerns he seemed to have were ever resolved, i've filed a WP:GA/R on this article to make its status certain. Homestarmy 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I recall that on Euler's biography, he's wearing a similar headdress in his famous portrait. Perhaps, given the notability of Euler, that image should be included on this page. - 69.47.186.226 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted a group of recent changes which made some random-seeming changes, some introducing errors, and added a number of fact tags, which were backdated by 18 months, & all or nearly all related to referenced material. Bring it here if there are any issues. Johnbod ( talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
Break out this horse tack definition book.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chaperon (headgear). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chaperon (headgear) 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 Chaperon (headgear) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 3 January 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from Chaperon (headgear) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 March 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/March. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chaperon (headgear) was a
good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the
good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated. Review: March 27, 2007. |
Cappuccio has been merged here
I'm not sure that I agree with you re apparent turbans being chaperons in reality. It would be nice if we had some citations to settle the matter either way. I found very little on the history of European turbans online, but I did find pictures of seeming turbans that didn't have the characteristic "wattles" and liripipes of chaperons. I just now paged through my one costume book, the Bruhn and Tilke pictorial history of costume and I found descriptions like these, for plate 46, headdresses, Burgundy, 15th century:
There were also a fair number of pictures of women who seemed to be wearing turbans. Some of them seem to be peasant women; it may have just been a way of protecting the hair and keeping it out of the way.
One would have to look at surviving costumes, instead of just pictures, to be really sure, I would think.
I revised for vagueness. If you have a costume history library, or access to a good one, see if you can find some cites. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. Zora 07:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
... is the perfect example of why I love Wikipedia so much. It's downright amazing that these wonderfully detailed articles about obscure topics get written! Thank you for it! mstroeck 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Right! I love articles that make me look for things in museums etc. that I hadn't even noticed before. -- AndreasPraefcke 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Passed. May require some better cleanup/expansion if you try to bring it to FA level, and I'd reconsider the gallery, but that's just my own two cents. Looks good! -- badlydrawnjeff talk 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm taking a break from it now, but will probably have another push later. Johnbod 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked at this article recently, and I do think it is a good article in some ways. It is well written, comprehensible, appears to cover its subject very well and has many fine illustrations.
But there are some issues that would need to be corrected. Otherwise, I'll list the article for GA Review.
Following Wikipedia:What is a good article?
That should be it, I think...
Fred- Chess 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please rephrase this section heading? It's just too unintentionally comical to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article. :-D
Peter Isotalo 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
unintentionally? It is used in the literature & it's hard to think of an alternative. Johnbod 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The gallery here is too large, and the gallery at Wikicommons is only a few images, it should be the other way around. -- Stbalbach 17:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Gallery at Commons is really on a different subject; only a couple of the images there are relevant to the subject of this article (& many do not show chaperons as such on any definition). The Gallery here is as large as it needs to be. The captions cannot be replicated on Commons, and form part of this article. I am sympathetic to people disliking huge and random galleries with no added value in the captions, but some articles on art and iconography demand galleries to be covered properly. Johnbod 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
OK I can follow that line of reasoning the captions are detailed. I kept the commons link there as they are both galleries in the gallery section and it will hopefully encourage users to upload images to commons and use it as a general repository and display place. -- Stbalbach 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems this article was not properly listed on the WP:GA page whenever it was passed, but since Fred-Chess seems to of disputed this articles status, said he'd put up a GA/R which seems to of not happened, and because I can't tell if the concerns he seemed to have were ever resolved, i've filed a WP:GA/R on this article to make its status certain. Homestarmy 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I recall that on Euler's biography, he's wearing a similar headdress in his famous portrait. Perhaps, given the notability of Euler, that image should be included on this page. - 69.47.186.226 21:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted a group of recent changes which made some random-seeming changes, some introducing errors, and added a number of fact tags, which were backdated by 18 months, & all or nearly all related to referenced material. Bring it here if there are any issues. Johnbod ( talk) 12:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Jan van Eyck 091.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) |
Break out this horse tack definition book.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chaperon (headgear). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)