Talk:Kaunakes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Kaunakes was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 30, 2016 Good article nominee Listed
August 31, 2016 Good article reassessment Delisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 28, 2015.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA delisted[edit]

This really isn't of GA quality. For starters, it is often given as "kaunakès", not "kaunakes", and the accented version should at the very least be mentioned. Second: "Greek for "thick cloak""? This source claims that it is Greek for "fleece". And this claims that it is Iranian for "hairy".

  • "also known as persis" This isn't sourced or explained further in the article, even though it sheds an interesting light on it (i.e the Greeks were well aware of the regional origin of the garment).
  • "which was worn during the Sumerian civilization around 2,500 BC." (still from the very first line of the article!). Well, it may have been first worn then, but it was worn for ages and ages, at least until 300BC or thereabouts, which explains how it got a Greek name and appears in Greek plays.
  • " suggesting overlapping petals or feathers," This is, again, not explained or sourced further in the article (a basic requirement). (Further in the article, " tufts ornamented like a toothed-comb over the wool": a toothed-comb? Ignoring the spelling mistake, it seems that this misinterprets sources claiming that it may have been made using a fine-toothed comb).

All this from a two-line lead...

The remainder of the article also needs a thorough, thorough rewrite. The purpose of the "purpose" section is unclear, it contains information not logically connected to one another and seems like some random bits of information that couldn't be fitted into the remainder of the article. The history section has strange things like "[...] could be traced to the 400–300 BC." Or something like "Coptic Egypt, not Mesopotamia, is credited with the original design of woven tapestry with projecting long locks or strands of wool." Coptic Egypt was not around before 50CE or thereabouts, so it is very hard to see what it may have to do with this article. Fram (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)