It was bound to happen, as usual
This article is a perfect proof to a theory that proposes the existence of two distinct categories of editors active in this encyclopedia: those to work building and perfecting articles, namely, the Contributors, and those who devote their time and energy to criticize articles built by Contributors, namely, the Critics. The second lot never add any value whatsoever to the vast encyclopedic effort being made in every country and language on a daily basis; all they do is to add their ubiquitous (and infamous) templates objecting whatever they feel can satisfy their urges to mar the work of others, and that objectionable attitude includes condemning articles and images to oblivion, excuse me, to deletion.
The all too common result of the "work" done by Critics is that the reader, eager to learn what Wikipedia has to say about a subject, gets the literary equivalent of a smack in the face, telling him/her about the defects or issues that someone thinks has found in the article. How disgusting!
This flawless article on the innocent subject of Patchwork Quilts merits being thanked for, and a lot at that. But all that was to see were those ridiculous templates from some Critics. For a change, they could instead have spared a little effort and corrected whatever they didn't like, but sadly, that never happens. By gosh, it's only about PATCHWORK QUILTS, so what's the need for "inline citations", or what is wrong with the length of the Introduction? Nonsense!
I have deleted such spurious templates. Let's hope no Critic reverts this. If that happens, then I guess Wikipedia is simply hopeless.
North American art form
I removed the «Globalize/US|date=December 2010» template and added a lede to the section to try to make clear that this innocent subject is something rather specific to the development of the patchwork quilt, which, being a North American, primarily Canadian and United States, art form, need not have that more culturally relativist perspective. I also created a "see also" section to help direct others to the widely scattered treatment of quilting in English Wikipedia. It's a pity our encyclopedia does so poorly on such a heavily researched subject. Beyond the pity, it reflects our male bias.
There is much more to be done and I would especially like to see an addition treating the relation of pattern exchange through sampler blocks to open-source software and of the quilting bee to later communal collaboration. - phi (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)