Could it be any worse? Options

[Kelly Martin]

Ran across this image recently. This fine work was executed to illustrate the article on smocking. The problem with this is that the work presented of absolutely horrific quality; if this were my work I would be tempted to burn it and under no circumstance would I let anyone see it. I'm sure that a five year old could do better than this.

Of course, one look at who created this travesty of textile arts and you'll understand why this is on Wikipedia.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Somey]

I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but if the point is to show how the fabric is gathered, does the quality of the stitching itself really matter? One might even argue that high-quality stitching might distract the reader/viewer from the fabric-gathering effect. Besides, the world has spandex and lycra now - does anybody even need this technique, other than to make period costumes for Renaissance Festivals? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the Smocking (T-H-L-K-D) article is about equal in length to the Textile industry (T-H-L-K-D) article, and actually has better sourcing - though admittedly the latter has an offshoot, Textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution (T-H-L-K-D) that's also about the same length.

[Trick cyclist]

Besides, the world has spandex and lycra now

Er - no. It has elastane. This is also known as spandex especially in the USA but according to the BBC spandex is actually a brand name. Lycra is the brand name for spandex used by Du Pont.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A676262

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Spandex.html