Talk:Research on Inuit clothing

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): No issues. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Mostly fine, but see below.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Image notes:

The images themselves are good, but I might want to recommend moving some around. The lead has no images, while two of those currently in the article chop up sections a little. Right now, I'm inclined to suggest moving File:Inuk Woman (6819810943).jpg to the lead, as it's a nice, eye-catching image that's currently a bit awkwardly placed halfway through a section break. Vaticidalprophet 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I've moved that one up and installed a copy of File:Qilakitsoq woman's parka sealskin 1978.jpg in the archaeology section to make it not look so barren. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting this and my other current review on 2O because I am clearly somewhere between grudgingly tolerated and actively unwanted on Wikipedia, and I should at least clear my head a bit and drop current obligations. Vaticidalprophet 10:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hiya :). I'll be giving a second opinion / finish the review. (opt) means I don't consider it part of the GA criteria. Article looks good! FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Femkemilene, thanks for jumping in on this one. I've made alterations below or explained my rationale otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant. I'm happy. Vaticidalprophet, if you're happy too, could you pass the article? FemkeMilene (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll do the honours. Thanks for picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 10:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose:

• Consider splitting the lede in two for ease of reading

• Done

• 'Analysis of effectiveness' is not a scientific field. Would natural sciences work? Physics is too specific I assume.

• I cheated by retitling the section "Modern scientific research" - does that work?

• Another significant area of research on Inuit skin clothing has been its effectiveness, especially as contrasted with modern winter clothing made from synthetic materials. Despite significant -> twice the word significant. Can either be replaced by a synonym?

• Swapped #2 for "extensive"

Accessibility

• Provide alt for images (opt)

• Done

• Maybe use the {{lang}} template for the bit of Danish(?) to help screen readers (opt)

• Done

Source

• Spot checked four sentences, arguably one minor discrepancy:
  • is the most efficient system for preventing heat transfer from the face in the cold, windy environment of the Arctic. The source says: 'developed to date'. As you could theoretically have some sort of exhaustive algorithm (with infinite computing time) that checks all possible configurations of clothing, I think it'd better to specify.

• Arguably, that's kind of implied in the statement that it's the most efficient. If something else was found to be better, the fur ruff would no longer be the most efficient.

Other:

• No close paraphrasing in the sources I checked, earwig is happy
• Stable, neutral and broad .

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 Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that research on Inuit clothing began with detailed images of Inuit people produced by Europeans as early as the 1560s? Source: King, J.C.H. (2005). "Preface and Introduction". In King, J.C.H.; Pauksztat, Birgit; Storrie, Robert (eds.). Arctic Clothing. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Press. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-7735-3008-9.

• Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Love Has Won

Improved to Good Article status by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC).

• Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. Article is well-written and cited with reliable sources. QPQ has been completed. No pings on Earwigs for copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK. Morgan695 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)