 | A fact from Cut glass appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 May 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Did you know nomination edit
- The following 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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
( )
Cut glass punchbowl, 1895
- ... that John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with crystal"?Source: page 32 in Sparke, Penny, "At the Margins of Modernism: The Cut - Crystal Object in the Twentieth Century", 1995, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester, 1995 , 77 ( 1 ) : 31-38, PDF
Created by Johnbod (talk). Self-nominated at 21:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC).
Stylistic issues edit
Johnbod, thanks for creating the article, but I am a bit puzzled by your reverts ([1], [2]) of my edits to bring the lead into conformity with our guidelines. You have not addressed why you believe that the version you reverted to, which is at odds with WP:REFERS and contains an overlong and non-capitalized WP:SHORTDESC, among other issues, is preferable. Could you do so here? Sandstein 20:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- As usual, as well as fiddling with the prose to no good effect, you considerably overstated what the policies actually say. For example WP:REFERS actually says: "Phrases such as refers to, is the name of, describes the, or is a term for are sometimes used inappropriately in the first sentence of Wikipedia articles". As the article explains, what is meant by "cut glass" today is a bit fiddly, so use here is appropriate. Someone else kindly corrected my caps slip when improving your shortdesc. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, on the contrary, I am of the view that the phrasing you prefer is inappropriate and unnecessarily complicated. I'll request a WP:3O. Sandstein 06:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, 3O guy here. I'll have to agree with Sandstein here with his first revision. The current revision makes it sound like cut glass is primarily a historical concept, "In fact today" feels like it's out of place, the "Today" sentence (note the repeat of "today") is a bit complex, and "prominent users" is a lot more simpler than "leading exponents". Cut glass still exists and is still produced, so "refers historically" should come later since the historical method of production isn't the main method used nowadays. Formal writing doesn't require us to be super complex with these things. AdoTang (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, in fact this was his first rewording, which runs into problems straightaway by using glassware - a chandelier is not that. His second attempt begins with "Cut glass or cut-glass is glass shaped by grinding or drilling techniques applied as a secondary stage to a piece of glass made by conventional processes such as glassblowing." which is not true in at least two ways ("shaped" is wrong). There is a lot to pack into the first para here - in particular style vs technique. Perhaps you would like to attempt a draft? I am not especially wedded to "refers", except that Sandstein's entirely erroneous bullying and over-statement of what policies actually say should be resisted. Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, 3O guy here. I'll have to agree with Sandstein here with his first revision. The current revision makes it sound like cut glass is primarily a historical concept, "In fact today" feels like it's out of place, the "Today" sentence (note the repeat of "today") is a bit complex, and "prominent users" is a lot more simpler than "leading exponents". Cut glass still exists and is still produced, so "refers historically" should come later since the historical method of production isn't the main method used nowadays. Formal writing doesn't require us to be super complex with these things. AdoTang (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Johnbod, on the contrary, I am of the view that the phrasing you prefer is inappropriate and unnecessarily complicated. I'll request a WP:3O. Sandstein 06:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)