Talk:Research on Inuit clothing/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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 .