Template:Did you know nominations/Kissing the shuttle
- The following discussion 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 PumpkinSky talk 00:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Kissing the shuttle
edit- ... that a Parliamentary Committee recommended that shuttle kissing should stop?
Created by ClemRutter (talk). Nominated by Pigsonthewing (talk) at 23:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
- So Nepal's Parliamentary Committee has stopped shuttle kissing? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, a Parliamentary Committee did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah! But which government's parliament's parliamentary committee did it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need to click on the link in the hook to find out. Isn't that the point of a cryptic link? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- The lead doesnt say anything about which one stopped it. Or is that also in disguise and you want people to see that in Google? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- You need to click on the link in the hook to find out. Isn't that the point of a cryptic link? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah! But which government's parliament's parliamentary committee did it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, a Parliamentary Committee did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What an interesting diversion, at the time in question under the Sugauli Treaty Nepal has been divided- the larger part was in the kingdom of Nepal which didn't has a representative assembly, while the smaller part was controlled (occupied) by the East India company which was nominally answerable to the United Kingdom parliament- so in effect the parliamentary committee would be responsible for both Lancashire and Nepal. I suspect that this was not the point you were trying to make. When the Lancashire industry rationalised, the looms were moved to India but it would take someone with Hindi to be able to write authoratively on the Indian cotton industry. There is need for many articles on the economics, architecture and organisation of cotton districts and notable mills. User:Dharmadhyaksha are you up for the challenge? GLAM:QSMM is a project to increase the quality of coverage of this industry in Lancashire- but if you are willing to start writing some equivalent articles in India, I would glad to help you. Please feel free to put some changes into the article we can always do a good faith revert if it is not appropriate- I would particular like help with references for shuttle catalogues with illustrations so I can do a SVG.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Lucky coincidence. Nepal was just a random name that i had picked. What i wanted to point out is that the lead doesn't clarify which country's parliamentary committee had banned it.
And we already have an article called Textile industry in India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The article is pretty rough right now. It's a good topic, though. After the article is fixed up a bit, I think that there are some ALT hooks that will be plenty interesting:
- ALT1: ... that the practice of "kissing the shuttle" continued long after it was discovered to spread tuberculosis and other diseases?
- ALT2: ... that shuttle kissing continued in Lancashire, England, long after it was outlawed in several U.S. states? --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Could you be a bit more specific about your concerns, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As there was a link to Kissing the shuttle on the Bancroft Shed hook which appeared on the front page yesterday, should this nomination now be rejected? -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- No. And please note that I deliberately didn't include a link to this article in the Bancroft nomination, for that very reason. In fact, you added it, at the last minute. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
DYKSG D1 only applies to bolded links. This is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)- It looks like almost two weeks ago an anon editor added several maintenance tags that haven't yet been addressed. Some of the tags are undoubtedly valid and relevant to DYK since they highlight several paragraphs in the Traditional weaving section that are completely unreferenced. Is there a plan to improve the referencing so this DYK nom can move forward? I hope so since I quite like Orlady's Alts and would like to see them on the Main Page. AgneCheese/Wine 02:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- This now seems to be resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in responding. It looks like there are few unreferenced paragraphs. I highlighted the claims within those unreferenced paragraphs that were the most needing of citations. I also removed a self-referential line that was actually somewhat confusing. I moved it to the talk page with a note. I'm starting to review the article for close paraphrasing concerns and noticed that the Stanley Graham refs, while having the correct ISBN number for the offline text, links to a community forum site that I'm (presuming) involves Stanley Graham. As the site doesn't look to be reliable nor does it seem to be used as a source for anything I would recommend removing the link as it looks like it serves no real purpose. AgneCheese/Wine 01:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please note I'll be unable to edit Wikipedia for a week or two. I suggest you liaise with the article's author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I have changed the caption to reflect maker and date and rm'd the self reference. Not a big issue. I have zapped the {{cn}}s. Rm'd url from Graham citation as requested- though I do think that a site that technically a blog but actually hosts material used in a University of Lancaster sponsored project is slightly different from what is usually objected to in a blog. Anything, that I have missed? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Please note I'll be unable to edit Wikipedia for a week or two. I suggest you liaise with the article's author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies for the delay in responding. It looks like there are few unreferenced paragraphs. I highlighted the claims within those unreferenced paragraphs that were the most needing of citations. I also removed a self-referential line that was actually somewhat confusing. I moved it to the talk page with a note. I'm starting to review the article for close paraphrasing concerns and noticed that the Stanley Graham refs, while having the correct ISBN number for the offline text, links to a community forum site that I'm (presuming) involves Stanley Graham. As the site doesn't look to be reliable nor does it seem to be used as a source for anything I would recommend removing the link as it looks like it serves no real purpose. AgneCheese/Wine 01:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- This now seems to be resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
For Alt 1 & Alt 2 with Alt2 getting my personal vote for most interesting. I appreciate the work that has gone into addressing all concerns. The article passes DYK criteria for date, length and referencing with no signs of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. It's good to go. AgneCheese/Wine 17:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
