Talk:Mitiarjuk Nappaaluk/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review on! Thanks for submitting this for the edit-a-thon! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Early life

• Spotcheck: [1] Cited source gives the location of Kangiqsujuaq as being in Nunavik, not Quebec. I understand that Nunavik is currently a part of Quebec, but given this is an indigenous person, I think it's better to use the specific region, per the source.

That's a good point -- I put down "Quebec" without really thinking, but most of the sources simply say she was born in "Kangiqsujuaq, Nunavik". Changed! -A.

• "– and had no brothers –" I think this is already implied by "the eldest of two daughters".

Well, not necessarily -- eldest daughter just means she was the oldest female child. One can be the eldest daughter and still have male siblings. -A.

• • Spotcheck: [2] Doesn't explicitly mention that she had no brothers.

Ref [3] (Sanaaq foreword) does explicitly say so: "Less traditionally, her father taught her the secrets of hunting and other male tasks, having no sons and she being his oldest daughter." -A.

• "She married Naalak Nappaaluk." Can we introduce Naalak here? I noticed that him being a promoter of Inuit culture is mentioned later, but think we could move that info here.

I'm leaning towards keeping the "promoter of Inuit culture" mention where it is, if that's okay -- I think it's something he became known for only later in life (it doesn't make as much sense to include it where he was still a young man). -A.

Aye that's fine. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Did she and her husband both have the same name before they married? Or did she have a different name before marriage?

I've wondered that too, but I don't know -- none of the sources I've found have confirmed whether one or either spouse changed their name (and I don't know her parents' surnames). I suppose "Attasie" could be a maiden name, but I would need to confirm that somehow before making any changes. For all I know, Naalak could have changed his name to hers when they married. -A.

Hrm, interesting. Might be something to look out for. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sanaaq

• "A Catholic mission had been established in Kangiqsujuaq in the 1930s," Think starting with her being approached would be better, just to keep the focus on her. The date of the mission's establishment could be mentioned later in the sentence.

That's fair. I've just cut that part for now (probably not essential!). -A.

• "a novel titled Sanaaq." Think just "the novel Sanaaq" would be fine.

Done. -A.

• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.

Teaching and translation

• Spotcheck: Might be worth putting another inline reference to [1] after "Nappaaluk translated the Roman Catholic Book of Prayer into Inuktitut" as I got confused trying to find it in [7]. :')

Done! -A.

• Spotcheck: [7[ Verified.
• Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
• Do we have any secondary sources that we could cite for her sculptures, or do we only have these primary sources from the museums themselves?

The Canadian Encyclopedia ref is the only one I've found that mentions her sculptures, and it doesn't specify where they can be found. I think the primary sources are okay -- they're only used to confirm straightforward facts of location (no interpretation of the artwork) -A.

Awards and honours

• Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.

Lead

• "in northern Quebec." As above, I think this should be replaced with "in the Nunavik region".

Done. -A.

• "although written earlier, it was published later than Markoosie Patsauq's Harpoon of the Hunter" Is this necessary to mention in the lead?

It seems to be frequently mentioned in sources (like any question of whether someone was "the first," I guess it's a scrutinized claim), but the main text explanation is probably enough. Removed from lead for now. -A.

• No infobox?

Do you think an infobox would be a good addition? There wasn't one when I first started work on this article, and it's a pretty short article (I think infoboxes are more useful for long ones), but I'm happy to add one if you like. -A.

I tend to lean towards including infoboxes, but it's not strictly necessary. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Grnrchst! I think I've fixed or responded to everything listed above. Please let me know if there's anything else. Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Alanna the Brave No bother! And aye, thanks for responding on everything. I'll be holding this until 3 November, just because of the image thing, but I'll be happy to pass it the moment that gets resolved. Feel free to ping me if I don't catch it on time. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All good, spelling and grammar-wise. My only minor prose notes are for reordering sentences.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Manual of style is followed to the letter

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References all well-laid out and easy to verify.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   There's one case of an inline citation that could be cited more explicitly, and some primary sources being used, but these aren't major issues.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Found a couple cases of source interpretation that I think needs addressing.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism found by earwig.[1]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems to be more-or-less complete. I found some extra information in the sources that could be added, but no major omissions.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused. A couple sentences take some focus away from the subject, but can be fixed with reordering.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No cases of non-neutral points of view found.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Major changes leading up to the GA nomination, but none since then. Last reversion was in June 2023, months before the nominator began work on the article.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Valid non-free use rationale, although an earlier version of the image is due to be deleted on 3 November because of its size. I may hold the review until then, just to be safe.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Very well written alt text and caption, complete with image credit.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall this article is very well written. I have some minor comments that I think should be addressed, mostly around sentence order and source interpretation, but other than that it's all good. I'll be put the review on hold until 3 November, just to be safe on image copyright issues. Ping me once you've addressed my comments and I'll be happy to give it another look over. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

   Okay, image issue has been dealt with. I'll pass the review now. Nice work Alanna. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2023 (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.