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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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 .