Talk:Eenoolooapik

Use of SFNs

@Nikkimaria: Apologies for the revert kerfuffle there. I understand WP:CITEVAR, using an updated form of citations when bringing in a new source is perfectly reasonable. The two sources prior to my rewrite were both websources (the Canadian Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Canadian Biography) where SFNs would be proper. Switching to SFNs when bring in citations for multipage journal sources is warranted; I tend to use SFNs whenever possible for academic journals, because if nothing else it makes things so much less of a headache for any future scholars or reviewers. Generalissima (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, SFN isn't necessary for the typical journal source - this one is only 16 pages. It also doesn't require changing the other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been told by editors much more experienced than I to use SFNs when using journal sources of more than a few pages; heck, 3/4 of the rationale at WP:SRF aren't even dependent on source length. I see it as ultimately harmless, especially since I didn't apply them to the sources already in-use prior to my revisions (those continue to use longform citations) Generalissima (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps that is reflective of their own preferences? I don't see any requirement regarding journals at SRF. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ultimately up to taste. But I think the reason people get antsy about is that it's very difficult to use shortform cites when a multipage source is so frequently cited without running up against WP:IBID, which explicitly recommends using SFNs in those sorts of situations. Generalissima (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

IBID notes that what is most commonly used is named references with |pages=, which is what is done here; this seems quite reasonable given the relatively short page range. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

At some point you will presumably glance over WP:PAGENUM, and read CITEVAR in its context. Dahn (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have, and it doesn't support your assertion that page-by-page citation is required - page ranges for journal articles are an accepted standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No, what it says is that if you cite a whole article (as in, for one single citation), you can also use page ranges. However, this is no longer a reference "to an article or book as a whole", but to pages in that article. I realize you're familiar with using online sources that have all the text on one page, but this article has moved along to something more complex. Let it grow. Dahn (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise, how about using {{r}} or {{rp}} to give page numbers right at the footnote in the body, sparing the need for a hierarchy of reference sections? –  Reidgreg (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, I've already implemented exactly that Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Eenoolooapik in Western clothing

• ... that Eenoolooapik (pictured) fell ill while kayaking through Aberdeen in traditional Inuit clothing? Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42870183 pg. 61
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aptostichus barackobamai

5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 06:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Eenoolooapik; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Generalissima: Newly expanded, interesting, no plagiarism, QPQ done. I think the article has a rather significant problem in its manner of using the sources, especially Jones (used as a source for the hook). For one, the citation for the hook comes loooong after the fact itself (some four phrases after, at the end of a paragraph). All citations to Jones are made to the entire article, 20-pages long, which is against various chapters of the Manual of Style, and which are pretty much faux citations. This explicitly contradicts DYK rules, which state that the fact for the hook has to be immediately cited (I wouldn't bother if it were after a phrase, or even two, but this is excessive); but more so, it is a very poor and lazy standard of writing, overall, since it is impossible to tell which page has which info, and makes it very hard on any other editor to introduce new info, should this appear in some other paper. (Furthermore, it seems quite implausible, or at least extraordinary, that Rowley and Jones would be usable sources for every single fact in a paragraph where they are both cited only at the end.) Please find a citation system that agrees with you, with footnotes for each fact picked out from Jones or whatever other source, then redo the referencing on the article; otherwise, this can't be used on the Main Page. Dahn (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dahn: When nominating this, I used SFNs, but these have been repeatedly removed by another editor. I have no idea how to pursue in this situation. Generalissima (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
    • @Generalissima: Sorry for not noticing the kerfuffle. I think Nikkimaria should be reverted with what are, quite frankly, disruptive edits. I just don't know which version should be reverted to. Dahn (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• • • • Hi @Dahn and Generalissima: CITEVAR is quite clear that users wishing to change a citation style established in an article are required to obtain consensus to do that first, which has not happened yet in the current talkpage discussion. Unfortunately in the absence of that, it is the conversions which are disruptive. Please stop doing that unless/until a consensus is reached. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
        • What is disruptive is the attempt to prevent the article from moving along to an objectively better standard. The citation standard you say was used before (I won't even check, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) was inoperable for sources which are 20-pages long, as is the case with the one used to source this hook. The objection makes no sense at all. Dahn (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• It appears a compromise was reached, and I thank both parties. @Generalissima: I would still appreciate it if you could break down the citations used just once per paragraph into citations closer to the fact that they each verify; they can even be duplicate, as long as it is clear which info belongs to which source, and on which page it can be found. This includes the hook fact, but may also be applied to other portions of the article where the reference comes at the end of the paragraph. Dahn (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Generalissima: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Z1720: @Dahn: Oh, totally forgot about this. I think this was resolved during the GAN process? The sentence with the hook fact is certainly cited. Generalissima (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And many thanks to you for your exquisite work. Dahn (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

RFC on citation style

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

So long as the style is consistent, the citation is precise and supports the text, so long as the reader can find the source we cited to without much problems and the style is not deprecated, we should not change citation styles just because we have some other tastes. However, that works both ways: if somebody else switched the article to their preferred citation style, so long as it is consistent, does not introduce errors and is otherwise acceptable, it's harmless so it doesn't need reverting back to status quo. It is also a waste of time and resources, particularly if users start to quarrel about the best style. It is an improvement to have inline citation over general references, that's why DYK requires inline cites and WP:FULLCITE says that text not supported by an in-line reference may be removed. Giving pages/chapters/quotes in references to books or long reports helps the reader verify content and is generally a good practice. But changing the format of reference is generally only a question of an editor's preference. So if the majority here wants SFNs, so be it, change it if you want and if you have time to waste and stop at that. But cited guidelines do not give any preference to one style or another (only discourage from using certain styles and say that any accepted style must be used consistently), so giving a closer's imprimatur to any specific style would be inappropriate. Just move on towards something more productive. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Should SFNs be used for this article? Generalissima (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Any page-by-page citation will have to be used, SFNs or whatever. I find Nikkimaria's objection incomprehensible, especially as this article is up for DYK, which specifically says that all facts invoked should be cited with utmost precision. Also, it seems that they are blindly reverting by this point. Dahn (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK doesn't require "page-by-page" citation, so I'm not sure what this claim is based on - could you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes it does. The DYK rules require inline citations, and the inline citations are defined (for instance here) as carrying exact page numbers whenever the page numbers (not full page ranges) when these are appropriate. Dahn (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• This page doesn't use short cites. But in the interests of avoiding further conflict, I've added specific page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• (As an academic point:) The rule I mentioned isn't just about short cites, it clarifies that long cites also need page numbers. Either way, thank you for the edit, it is a good option (as I have said in my first comment here, we do not need SFNs, but we do need page numbers). Dahn (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Philosophical differences aside, hopefully this solution is satisfactory to all - Generalissima? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes There is no compelling reason not to. They look better and I don't like the current style of page numbers added, they look odd and unclear. I'm not see any reasonable basis for the revert in the first place. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes Generalissima is the first major contributor to the article and we should defer to her choice of citation style. CITEVAR states that editors should not change a citation style from the one "used by the first major contributor". CITEVAR also states that we should avoid "switching between major citation styles". The page prior to Generalissima's well sourced and written article was a stub with two citations to tertiary sources. Even if there were a valid reason to change citation style, {{sfn}} should be used over <ref> tags and {{rp}}. Sfn is easier to use and update. It is also more intuitive for readers because it keeps all of the citation information together, over the ref-rp style, which results in a popup of a full citation with the page number divorced from it in the prose. Regarding the dispute over page numbers, they might not be required for a C class article, but they are a good idea if you want to get an article through FAC. CITEVAR exists so that editors can improve article quality without being disrupted by style disputes. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Although a variety of citation systems are considered acceptable on Wikipedia, I'm not seeing a compelling reason for reverting the SFNs that Generalissima added as the first major contributor to the article (per voorts's comments). If this was about whether or not to use SFNs for sources without page numbers (making SFN an arguably extra and unnecessary step), I might understand reversion, but from what I'm seeing this is not the case. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
• No I am in favor of anything that uses precise page numbers for source-text integrity reasons. The first option would be to go full SFNs. The second, would be to use {{Cite book}} / {{Cite journal}} with precise page numbers on the first usage and {{harvnb}}/{{sfn}} on subsequent uses with other page numbers. A third, would be to use {{rp}} to add page numbers next to the citation to the book/journal. On 17 Jan the third option was put into place, which satisfies my objection. @Nikkimaria: Why are you using the deprecated |author= over |last1=? Would you object to changing to match the suggested CS1 style? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• @In actu: The reference you're referring to was changed recently by another editor. Previously and otherwise, the article doesn't use CS1 at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eenoolooapik/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Reidgreg

I also saw this nomination and found it interesting. I'll post some notes in this section; feel free to ignore them as they're not really part of the official review.

• The journal Arctic is available free here. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic2069 . That can be addd to the citation, for those who don't want to go through Jstor.

Reidgreg (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Is it alright to say "Baffin" instead of the more familiar "Baffin Island"? Contemporary sources may have used "Baffin" or "Baffin Land" as the island probably hadn't been circumnavigated at that time and they may have been uncertainty if was an island, multiple islands, or a peninsula of North America, Greenland, or an unknown polar continent.
• Possible expansion: Jones connects the migration of Eenoolooapik's family and the remarriage of his father to the economic effects of the European whalers, who provided sought-after items in exchange for labour. It would seem likely that Eenoolooapik also worked for the whalers (how else would they have formed familiarity?). (Whalers came to rely on an Inuit workforce, often employing whole families.) (Addition:) Just found a short biography of Penny at Arctic (link, p 831) states that Penny brought "an Eskimo pilot" to Scotland in 1839. This would seem to confirm Eenoolooapik's employment as a skilled ice pilot. The Inuit were often employed as ice pilots, familiar with the characteristics of different kinds of sea ice, picking a ship's route through the ice to the likely position of whales and other marine mammals.
  • While I think you're probably correct, I don't think we can draw that conclusion without that source naming our subject, to avoid potential OR issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
    • I suppose that could be taken as WP:SYNTH (combining sources), but this was pretty much a singular event: Penny brought one Inuit to Scotland in 1839. @Ealdgyth: what are your thoughts? – Reidgreg (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
• Kalaallit is a proper name and doesn't have to be italicized. If you wish, you could follow it with the parenthetic (West Greenlandic Inuit).

Reidgreg (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• The Bon Accord fished for several weeks in Melville Bay Lest there be any doubt, would you consider changing: fished → hunted whales? (This is covered by the current source, Jones p.63.)

Reidgreg (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• At Cambridge UP (via Wikipedia library) "William Penny, 1809–92: Arctic Whaling Master" in Polar Record, Volume 15, Issue 94, January 1970, pp. 25 - 43 Author Clive A. Holland. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S003224740006037X

  p. 30-31 Bon Accord was the only ship available at Aberdeen for whaling, as whaling in Davis Straits was in such decline. It also mentions a petition by the shipowners of Kirkaldy to the Admiralty, to mount an expedition to Frobisher's Straits (south of Cumberland Sound).

  p.34: In 1846, Eennoolooapik joined Penny for three months of whaling. (more than "briefly").

• wrote a biography of Eenooloaapik in 1841 The source says it was published that year, not written that year. FYI, McDonald's book is available at CUP, https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1017/CBO9781139150613 Its original publication date is MDCCCXLI, which I believe confirms 1841.

Reidgreg (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
• Spotchecks:
  • "Eenoolooapik (also written as Inuluapik) was born c. 1820 at the settlement of Qimisu on Blacklead Island, a small islet in Cumberland Sound (referred to as Tenudiakbeek by Eenoolooapik) offshore of Baffin" is sourced to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography which supports some of the information - but not the "also written as Inuluapik" or the "offshore of Baffin". Also - Qimisu is spelled Qimisuk in the source.
  • "The coast of Baffin on the Davis Strait was a frequent hunting grounds for Scottish whalers, and the inquisitive Eenoolooapik became well-known to whaling crews in the vicinity of Cape Searle. He planned twice to return to Scotland with the whalers, but both times was convinced to stay at Aggijjat by his mother." is sourced to this journal source Arctic which supports the second sentence, but not the first.
  • "In 1833, Scottish whaler William Penny was sent to investigate circulating Inuit claims of a large "inland sea" (corresponding to Cumberland Sound), supposedly a rich whale hunting ground to the south of Exeter Bay that they called Tenudiakbeek. Penny was forced to turn back." is sourced to the Arctic journal article which sort of supports the information - there is no mention of "a large "inland sea" (corresponding to Cumberland Sound)" in the source.
    • The "inland sea" part was removed and the connection of Tenudiakbeek to Cumberland Sound is cited to Canadian Encyclopedia. FYI, I found the "inland sea" part in Jones p. 59. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • "His condition improved after several weeks of rest and bloodletting, but he was again bedridden with fever for several months after performing a seal hunting demonstration. Penny attempted to teach Eenoolooapik reading and writing during his recovery, but he grew disinterested in study after learning the alphabet, seeing it as having no practical use." is sourced to Jones p. 60-61 which supports the information.
  • "With no sign of naval funding for an exploration mission to Baffin's "inland sea", Captain Penny outfitted a privately funded expedition aboard the Bon Accord. Eenoolooapik was homesick and eager to return home, but enjoyed large amounts of gifts given to him by local Scots, including a £20 Treasury grant including cooking utensils, firearms, and clothing" is sourced to Jones p. 63 which mostly supports the information - but the grant was for Eenoo's friends/guardians/protectors to buy supplies for him, it wasn't a direct grant of the stuff.
  • "communicating them with some difficulty due to differences between the Inuit languages." is sourced to Jones p. 63-66, but Jones says "As they came aboard, Eenoo greeted them in his dialect, which was at least partially understood" and then goes on to describe various discussions between Eenoo and the Greenlanders so I don't think "with some difficulty" is really supported by the source
  • "Eenoolooapik died in 1857 from complications of tuberculosis, first developed during his time abroad" Source says Eenoo died before Sept 1847, when Penny was told Eenoo was dead
  • I checked most of the rest of the article against Jones and the other sources and these were the only issues I discovered.
• Lead:
  • "was an Inuit hunter and guide noted for his service with British whaler William Penny and visit to Scotland" perhaps "was an Inuit hunter and guide who served with British whaler William Penny and visited Scotland"?
  • "the only contemporary full-length biography of any Inuit published during the 19th century" given that the body doesn't say this is the only bio ... this should probably be "is likely the only contemporary full-length biography of any Inuit published during the 19th century"
• Early life:
  • "was sent to investigate circulating Inuit claims of a large "inland sea" "circulating" here isn't useful and is somewhat confusing - I suggest removing it.
  • "Enquiring to Inuit at Aggijjat, Penny learned that Eenoolooapik" do you mean "Enquiring with the Inuit at Aggijjat, Penny learned that Eenoolooapik"?
  • "Penny returned with him to Scotland, believing that his presence" this is very confusing - it implies that Eenoo was the one in charge of taking Penny back to Scotland - which is pretty much not the case. Suggest "Penny recruited Eenoolooapik to return with Penny to Scotland, believing that his presence"

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth - I've made edits to address all of these points. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ... not sure what is going on here. Reidgreg - are you wanting to take over the review? And who is the main editor responsible for making changes and which changes have been made? The nominator hasn't weighed in here, but has mad changes with the edit summary of "per GAN" but others are ALSO making changes without weighing in here. It's turning into a mess and I'm not sure what's going on. Some clarity for the person who is (at least on paper) the reviewer would be nice. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Sorry for contributing to any disruption of your review; I realize it can be difficult to look through all the diffs for changes. I feel you're doing a good job with the review and hope you will continue. Page stats show Generalissima and Nikkimaria are the article's major authors and look to be working toward achieving GA. The third editor, Dahn, is the DYK reviewer, with most edits seeming to be minor copyedit/cleanup (eg: category changes) without much in the way of content changes. I went over your bullet points above and all the concerns appear to have been addressed. (Unfortunately, no check marks were made.) Reidgreg (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

These look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)