# Talk:Crinoline

Is it simply a fabric.  Is it a dress made from a type of fabric?  Is it a dress made to fit over one of those contraptions?  Or is it the contraption itself?  98.221.141.21 (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

At present, I'm not sure this page is as informative as it could be. I'm going to have a go at doing something better, starting off with a short article. (My first article for the Wikipedia! Ooo, how exciting!) Katherine Shaw 11:25, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
OK, well, I've started, and there was more faffing than I liked, but it's there, and I don't think it's that bad (for a first effort). I hope to expand the article soon, including some information on the history of the crinoline and the various forms it's taken. I also have some references to add.Katherine Shaw 12:00, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that the "plastic" hoops used in modern wedding gowns etc. are actually nylon - the lightweight hooping I am familiar with is nylon.  I added nylon as an alternative to plastic rather than removing plastic.  Also added various links. PKM 1 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Previous edit was a shot in an edit war, when consensus hasn't been reached. Please cease and desist until the community reaches consensus. The Editrix 12:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who's unilaterally trying to impose her strange categorizations on Wikipedia, without even having the common decency to offer the remainder of us peons on Wikipedia one single shred of meaningful explanation.  The fact that you've been silent on your user talk page for three days now (while very actively editing on Wikipedia all the while), indicates that you have no meaningful explanation to offer -- and that being the case, I feel no hesitancy in reverting to the categories that were there before you started unilaterally imposing your individual agenda.  Frankly, your high-and-mighty accusations of "edit-warring" don't go very well together with your refusal to offer any meaningful explanation for your uncooperative unilateral actions (which others have called into question as well as my self).Churchh 13:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Crinoline Today; could someone write about Vivienne Westwoods Mini Crini Collection?

Fixed Mabalu (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Should there be a mention somewhere in this article about the garment's popularity with girls in the 1950s rock and roll scene? (And even today by people into that scene?) Or is that technically called something different?

Yes, the Crinoline been rebirthed by the "New look" in 1948 and die in 1958, replaced by jeans and tights.Håbet 05:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to start but there needs to be a distinction between the old style fabric, the garment and the modern usage of the term to describe certain types of fabric.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsgomoo (talk • contribs) 04:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 

I find questionable the claim of crinolines worn by factory workers operating machinery. Since there's been no response to the citation needed template added in June 2007, I've posted a query on the original editor's User talk page. All editors are invited to help clear up this matter. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1846 patent given as the first hoop skirt is ... not a hoop skirt. It's just a corded petticoat; the only difference from the earlier ones is that it uses a specific type of sisal cord instead of cotton. There's no reason to single it out. --Principessa (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"In 1857, the Paris correspondent of The New York Times reported a non-fatal accident to two "elegantly dressed" young women whose clothes caught fire in the street.  It was believed that a lighted cigar had rolled under the dress of one as she sat at a cafe, but "the balloon-like form of her skirts and the confined air" delayed conflagration until she began to walk outside, when her skirts abruptly ignited.  Her friend, rushing to her aid, also caught fire.  Passers-by helped them, and neither was seriously hurt."
I checked with various keywords and cannot find this article in Newspapers.com's digitised version of the New York Times for 27 July 1857. I'll double check as it sounds credible but for now I'm removing it from the article. The paper/source are both probably misidentified. Mabalu (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crinoline/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


### Stability assessment
Upon inspection of article edit history = I see only constructive editing going back several months.
Looking at article talk page I see an Edit war notice ... from 2006.
No outstanding issues here. Next, on to Image review. — Cirt (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


### Image review
File:Princess Dagmar of Denmark with her dog.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Crinoline, 1860-1870. MoMu - Fashion Museum Province of Antwerp, www.momu.be. Photo by Hugo Maertens, Bruges.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:1856crnl.gif = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Historical Hoopskirts.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Crinoline era2.gif =  Not done = please format image page with commons:Template:Information.
File:Woman's Cage Crinoline LACMA M.2007.211.380.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:17 January 1857 inflatable crinolines Punch.png = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:BLW Cage Crinoline.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Crinoline joke photograph sequence 04.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Crinolettes 1872-75.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Maid and mistress in crinoline. Punch Almanack for 1862-2.png = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:John Finnie. Maids of All Work, 1864-65.jpg =  Not done = please fix odd text at image page = and why two Summary sects?
File:The Crinoline Storm-Signal. Punch, November 28 1863.PNG = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Women wearing crinolines set on fire, ca. 1860, lithograph Wellcome V0048935.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:The Dangers of Crinoline, 1858 01.png = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:War crinoline, L'Art et la Mode, 1916.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Christian Dior Dress.jpg =  Not done = missing date field.
File:Vivienne Westwood Mini Crini.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:Western Square Dance Group.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
File:The bride - New Orleans crop.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, Image review check is good, appropriate image page formatting and licensing there at Commons. Y
Please fix the three (3) outstanding image issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


### Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 4, 2015, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
NOTE: Please respond, below this entire GA review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
WP:LEAD = might consider rearranging a bit, to have a bit more balance of the paragraphs here.
Use of quotations = problem. I would strongly strongly recommend cutting out and trimming quotations as much as possible. A bit too much use of quotations, throughout.
I see three (3) sections of large blockquoting that should be removed. Please try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming quotations, as much as possible.
Probably too many total images. Yeah most are okay per my Image review, above, but they clutter up the page a tad bit. For example, at ends of some of the sub-sections, there's an odd amount of extra blank space, probably caused by those images.
However, you do make great use of images when combined, for example like your use of {{multiple image}} and also the combined one at File:Historical Hoopskirts.jpg. Maybe more of that type of utilization, less scattered around the place.
Big white space examples at ends of sect: Pre-1850, Crinolettes and 1880s revival, Hazards, and 20th & 21st centuries.
Other than above, writing style itself is quite good, certainly good enough for GA.
2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout to proper sources with good citation style. I'm not sure I like all those links to Google Books, that seems a bit weird, I'd suggest removing them and just making sure the cites conform to WP:CIT structure.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers major aspects, organized in a straight chronological format as structure, which I happen to like and agree with, good job here.
4. Neutral point of view?: Indeed written in a neutrally-worded tone, no issues here.
5. Stable? Passes here, per above.
6. Images?: Issues with three, as noted, above:
File:Crinoline era2.gif =  Not done = please format image page with commons:Template:Information.
File:John Finnie. Maids of All Work, 1864-65.jpg =  Not done = please fix odd text at image page = and why two Summary sects?
File:Christian Dior Dress.jpg =  Not done = missing date field.
#NOTE: Please respond, below this entire GA review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


### Responses
Thank you Cirt. First, I will address the image issues:

File:Crinoline era2.gif = Info template provided. This is one of the notorious Haabet's uploads, but I have managed to work out from his identifying info what the volume is, and I am trusting that he is right about the page number. Ideally, I would prefer a better image showing a horsehair crinoline, but such images are few and far between. It is essential for the section to be able to show an early horsehair petticoat, and this is currently the best that can be sourced.
File:John Finnie. Maids of All Work, 1864-65.jpg = Removed first summary section. The "odd text" appears to be being automatically added by the template, cannot manually remove or see what's causing it.
File:Christian Dior Dress.jpg = Missing date field has been supplied. Mabalu (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Verifiability
Secondly, I am going to look at the Verifiability issue. This is partly why all the links to Google Books - I like being able to double check what sources say, hence the links. When I see a statement, I love it if I have the ability to click through to the relevant page on Google Books and double check for myself what the source says - particularly on a subject like this where there is a lot of conflicting published info and speculation/fantasising presented as fact. Is it strictly necessary to remove the links? Can you respond further on this please?

Writing style
Thirdly, this will take some time to sort through, so bear with me as I look at the issues as listed below:

WP:LEAD = might consider rearranging a bit, to have a bit more balance of the paragraphs here.
Use of quotations = problem. I would strongly strongly recommend cutting out and trimming quotations as much as possible. A bit too much use of quotations, throughout.
I see three (3) sections of large blockquoting that should be removed. Please try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming quotations, as much as possible.
Probably too many total images. Yeah most are okay per my Image review, above, but they clutter up the page a tad bit. For example, at ends of some of the sub-sections, there's an odd amount of extra blank space, probably caused by those images.
However, you do make great use of images when combined, for example like your use of {{multiple image}} and also the combined one at File:Historical Hoopskirts.jpg. Maybe more of that type of utilization, less scattered around the place.
Big white space examples at ends of sect: Pre-1850, Crinolettes and 1880s revival, Hazards, and 20th & 21st centuries.
My responses will be added as follows:

WP:LEAD - I will do this last, once I have addressed the other issues. This will require a bit more time to work on.
Please can you be more specific about which quotations you think are non-essential. Overall, I think most of the quotes are well-used and placed in context. I have removed one Westwood quote that I was thinking should be removed anyway.
The blockquoted sections are from public domain text, all published over 100 years previously (in 1829, 1863 and 1874). I feel that the first two in particular are essential, the first one to show how crinoline was first introduced to the general public and how it was described; and the second lists, in contemporary terms, issues with crinolines. I do agree about the 1874 source taking up space, and have summarised it. I have also cut down the 1863 quote and merged it with the leading-in paragraph, but I feel that it cannot be edited/summarised any further without losing its vividity and concise summary of the issues.
I have removed some of the images, a few with great regret as IMO many of them were essential in context and complement the text. I was surprised to read that image galleries are not permitted, which is particularly annoying when trying to illustrate a variety of different styles that happened in rapid succession, or offering a selection of examples (ie, of Punch cartoons over the years mocking crinolines, or 20th century styles...)
Thank you. If I could have reasonably done so with other images, I would have done the merges already - they were considered, but due to logistics, were rejected.
All "space" codes have been removed.
At this point the lede is all that needs to be done. Mabalu (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone always says the quotes they've chosen are so special and can't go. But in the end the articles always look better with less quotes. Please try to paraphrase instead of large blockquoting and remove quotes. — Cirt (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure the tone of that response was entirely appropriate, but I'll put it down to plain text not reflecting tone and nuances. Also, I'd like to note that the blockquoting was largely removed with the exception of the short one from the 1829 source, which is historically significant as the earliest known description of the new material. Mabalu (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope. Zero tone was intended. Tone therefore must have been artificially placed in by the reader, after the fact. :P — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Emoticons aside, can we get back to assessment related stuff please. Mabalu (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted you to please understand there was no intention of any negative tone, okay? — Cirt (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Understood, I just wasn't sure if you had looked at the edits I made before commenting (as it seemed a very fast response), and genuinely wanted to know where specific issues were. Mabalu (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll highlight any remaining issues, below. — Cirt (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
A new material has just been introduced for capotes, which promises to be a favourite: it is called crinoline, from crin, horse-hair; it is a fine clear stuff, not unlike in appearance to leno, but of a very strong and durable description: it is made in different colours; grey, and the colour of unbleached cambric are most in favour. = This could be trimmed, quote-marks added to either side, and then the slightly smaller quotation added into main article body text, and avoid blockquote format.
"the cage was without doubt the first industrial fashion,"  = this could be paraphrased.
"ascend a steep stair, lean against a table, throw herself into an armchair, pass to her stall at the opera, and occupy a further seat in a carriage, without inconveniencing herself or others, and provoking the rude remarks of observers." = this could certainly be paraphrased and/or trimmed down in size.
— Cirt (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

All three have been addressed. I'm not sure the third one is actually an improvement, but it is at least a paraphrase. Mabalu (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think that looks MUCH MUCH BETTER! Great job! I'm going to go out for a brief walk and get some fresh air and then have another look. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Lede has been rewritten to more accurately mirror the order of info in the article. I'm gonna call it a night for now, and come back to this tomorrow. I think the main outstanding question is the cites now, as you had concerns about the Google Books links (although I do like being able to click through to the source to at least verify that that's indeed what it says.) Mabalu (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I went for a lovely walk and then came back and took another look through the article. The lede looks much better! As does the article as a whole. My thanks to Mabalu for being so polite and responsive to my comments. Passed as GA. — Cirt (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I split the section titled "20th and 21st centuries" into two separate sections for easier navigation. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)