Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inuit clothing/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2021 [1].

Inuit clothing

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inuit skin clothing is a tremendously interesting topic that I wrote a whole article about out of spite because we didn't have one and I wanted to merge an orphaned stub to it. The more I said about it, the more I learned there was to say about it, and my research resulted in not only the comprehensive primary article, but two child articles as well (history of Inuit clothing and research on Inuit clothing). It's a shame it took us until 2020 to have an article on the topic, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't happy I got to be the one to do it.
Throughout their entire history, the Inuit have been master survivors, and their skin clothing system is a living testament to that: research has found that the traditional clothing of the Inuit is warmer and more comfortable than modern military and expedition gear. In addition to being effective, Inuit clothing is an expression of identity, artistic technique, spirituality, and style. While full outfits of traditional skin clothing are no longer worn all the time, it would be a mistake to pin Inuit clothing to the past – the Inuit continue to integrate the patterns and styles of their traditional clothing with their modern lives today. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted bolded phrase in the lead should match the article title per MOS:BOLD. Otherwise there shouldn't be a bolded phrase. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • If you double check the samlinger.natmus.dk source links for all the photos, all are tagged as CC-BY-SA. I'm not sure why the front page of the Skin Clothing database would give contradictory information, but I believe it's not possible to un-license a photo once it's released under a more free license
  • There is no need for exclamation marks. When those photos were uploaded, the license on the source pages explicitly stated CC-BY-SA 2.0. They may have updated their licensing since then. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those archived links are from January this year. I started using the site in August last year (you can see this from my earliest skin clothing upload), at which time their licensing stated CC-BY-SA and linked to CC-BY-SA 2.0. Obviously they have updated their licensing since then. I had no reason to realize they had done so in the mean time - why would I, since the line describing the licensing still read CC-BY-SA as it always had? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is no way to verify that the images were ever available under the other license. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, as the Commons pages have been updated to CC by 4.0, which you would know if you had looked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Inuit-Kleidung 1.jpg File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg — why is the underlying clothing out of copyright?
  • The underlying clothing also has copyright. Unless the clothing designer has relinquished their rights to it or it expired. FoP only applies to permanently located works such as buildings or statues. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The helpful people in the Commons Discord pointed me to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter, which has a section on clothing. Per that section, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable." It goes on to state that copyright of fashion exists in some countries, such as France, but as far as I can tell, Canada does not have such a provision (See for example [6]). Since both photos were taken in Canada, they are fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a traditional design, no one can own a copyright on it. It's not like it's the Disney logo   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Two smiling Kauwerak Eskimo girls wearing print cotton parkas, Nome, Alaska, between 1903 and 1910 (AL+CA 6372).jpg — when was this first published?
  • The source does not give a publication date, so you can't assume it was just because the tag has been applied to it. People often use Commons tags incorrectly. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per [7], the photographer, Beverly Bennett Dobbs, stopped working in still photography and had sold his negatives to the Lomen Brothers by about 1911, including that photo in particular. The Lomen Bros. got out of photography entirely after a fire destroyed their building in 1934; they never reopened. If Dobbs published it himself first before 1911, or if Lomen published it before 1926, it's expired, both under {{PD-US-expired}}. If Lomen for some reason hung on to it for fifteen years and published it sometime between 1926 and the 1934 destruction of their studio, it's {{PD-US-no notice}}, because while the studio's name is on the photo, there is no explicit copyright notice on it. I find it exceedingly unlikely that they published it after they went out of business. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, are you suggesting that it could have been first published after it was first published? It was clearly published in by Lomen Brothers, as you can see on the photograph in the bottom left corner. Therefore, the latest that this image could have been "first published" is 1934, when their studio burned to the ground and went out of business. If anyone else published it first, they did it earlier, which only strengthens the PD-expired argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was uploaded by an employee the Canadian Museum of History working through GLAM; they're still an active uploader so if you have further questions I'm sure they could answer them. It was also created before 1949 so it hits {{PD-Canada}} even if it wasn't uploaded as CC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gallery. Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant. For example, if you feel you absolutely must have three images to illustrate caribou clothing, put a gallery of three images in that specific section. Also, I did not check these images for copyright status.[8] (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You aren't obligated to like the gallery, but in my opinion it presents a selection of images that illustrate relevant and unique aspects of Inuit clothing that do not otherwise fit well in the text. WP:GALLERY does not forbid them in articles, nor does it state that they must be positioned in any specific place. The image of Niviatsinaq shows that beaded parkas have a long history, there is no other image of a Mother Hubbard parka where the subject isn't obscuring much of it, there are no photos of gloves in the text, the chewing to soften leather demonstrates the traditional clothing-making process, the Kalaaliit outfit illustrates the modern evolution of Greenlandic wear into the national costume (and the "skin embroidery" process mentioned in the article), and the image of kamiit with the tools demonstrate the specific process of boot-making. It's clear that the gallery serves the reader by providing a curated selection of images that are otherwise of interest to them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the peanut gallery: I think the gallery adds value to this article and should be kept. This is a topic wherein visuals really help and freely licensed photography exists, so use it (if anything, increase the default size of the pictures in the gallery), and the gallery allows lots of relevant images to be included without creating sandwiching or overwhelming the text. Also, just stylistically, it's cleaner to have a single gallery at the end rather than multiple galleries, barring a truly gigantic amount of images in the gallery; not saying that the multiple gallery approach can't work, but it's a style preference at most. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my opinion: MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are extrapolating MOS:IMAGELOCATION, which describes the most sensible place to put individual images, to apply to galleries. In fact, that section goes on to state that if that's not possible, only to avoid placing images too early in the text. It gives no direction about galleries. Neither WP:GALLERY nor Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout specify where galleries should be located, but most general galleries are placed at the bottom of articles by custom, such as at dress, wedding dress, Lolita fashion, or oil painting. I see no reason that this gallery should be any different - as SnowFire says, it's cleaner to have one gallery than a bunch of tiny ones cluttering up the main text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are, and just making "policy" up, and not for the first time. Perhaps unfortunately, WP:GALLERY doesn't reflect the existence of "mini-galleries" at all, mainly because they had not been "invented" when it was written - everybody using galleries did what you have done and put a single gallery at the end of the article. Just ignore. The pictures are of course absolutely vital for this, like any costume article, and very good. I'd only say the gallery size could be upped a bit. Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnbod, I appreciate your input. I've never actually used the image size parameters for galleries before - should I use both the height and width parameters, or only one? And how big do you recommend? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mostly use something like <gallery widths="180px" heights="200px"> , then maybe fiddle with the settings as appropriate. You have a mix of "portrait" and "landscape" images; you could split them into 2 consecutive galleries, or use the landscape ones in the text somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 1f and 3. I'm concerned that the image licensing is not compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy in all cases and that images are being used without demonstrated encyclopedic relevance and connection to the article text. As stated in WP:IMGCONTENT, "The relevant aspect of the image should be clear and central." With each image I should be able to connect it to some aspect discussed in the article. A curated image gallery that's not directly connected to the text can be moved to Commons and linked as an external link. I don't appreciate being accused of "making policy up" when WP:image use policy actually says, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buidhe, can you clarify as to which images you feel are out of compliance with copyright policy? I replied with clear explanations to all of your objections above over a week ago. Unfortunately, I have received no replies from you since then, so if you had any further concerns, it has been impossible for me to know what they are as you have not articulated them. It also feels distinctly unfair to have an opposition based on wording in a comment that someone else made - I did not ever say you were making anything up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm sorry if my remarks (not solely based on this nom) caused this, and I don't want to make things worse, but Buidhe, perhaps you could give the policy support for your statements above:
  1. "Sticking a bunch of images at the bottom of an article in a section titled "Gallery" is the worst way to do images in a Wikipedia article. If you MUST have galleries, they should be split up and placed in the article sections where they are relevant."
  2. "If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all."
  3. You might also comment on how "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section; if this is not possible, try not to place an image "too early" i.e. far ahead of the text discussing what the image illustrates, if this could puzzle the reader" (from MOS:IMAGELOCATION) ends up as "MOS says that images should be placed in the section where they are relevant. If there isn't a relevant section with text closely related to the image, then it shouldn't be there at all".

Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a really strange oppose. If Buidhe can't reply to PMC's in-line responses, it doesn't seem actionable to me. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, a full image review has not been done. I have not checked the copyright status of the image of the gallery, because the gallery itself violates WP:image use policy. Furthermore, the copyright issues from other images have NOT been resolved. so the oppose still stands. (t · c) buidhe 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any "outstanding issues" exist because you failed or refused to reply to me, and then showed up ten days later to dump an oppose based on so-called unresolved copyright concerns - and still without responding to me at that time. Now you show up another ten days after that to respond to exactly two of them, then reaffirm your oppose without waiting for any reply to that! I hope the coordinators will treat this oppose with some scrutiny, because I feel that it goes completely against the collaborative spirit of FAC at which discussion and responsiveness from all parties is expected. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator comment
[edit]
  • @Buidhe: hi and thanks for your work on this. Would it be possible to clarify if your oppose is solely on the basis of licensing, or because of the licensing and, separately, the use of the gallery? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Premeditated Chaos, can I ask if you are happy that the non-gallery images are appropriately licensed? Buidhe's concerns seem clear to me - I have not examined them in detail and so cannot comment if they are valid, but they seem clear. Regardless, it is for a nominator to bring a nomination to FAC with its image licences in good order. Are you quite sure that these are?
  • Similarly, Buidhe comments that they have not reviewed the gallery images; are you quite sure that they would stand up to a scrutiny of their licensing status.
  • In passing I note that ensuring that only images which quite clearly have no licensing issues are included in featured articles is one of the more important parts of FAC. Getting this wrong has the potential to cause serious legal issues for Wikipedia and the coordinators, and image reviewers, perforce err on the side of caution. Rereading, can I stress that that this is not meant to prejudge any coordinator decision as and when we dig into the detail of this nomination's image review, but to give some background on where we will be coming from.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, it seems Buidhe is really digging in their heels and going against long standing norms re galleries. Which would be fine if they had well articulated and reasoned grounds, but no; just a vague sullenness. Ceoil (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we lay off the personal attacks. Ceoil, the last four words are inappropriate. I would be grateful if you would consider striking them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Gog the Mild, I responded to each and every one of Buidhe's licensing concerns above in a timely manner yet I have received essentially little to no discussion in return. What little response I have received has been has been unhelpful and verged on feeling that Buidhe was assuming bad faith on my part. As a result, it has been utterly impossible for me to know what images she remains concerned about and which (if any!) she considers acceptable. It took a separate ping from ImaginesTigers for her to return several weeks after she stopped responding to me here, and at that time she basically reiterated her oppose with - again - no concrete feedback. Even now, a ping from an FAC coord receives five words in response, with zero clarification as to which images she has concerns about. As her interactions with me at the Dali FAC were both civil and reasonably responsive, I can only imagine that her unusual behavior at this FAC has to do with her feelings about the gallery, which is disappointing.
Since I have received no specific feedback, I can only guess, but I assume that her major concern is the set of images from Skin Clothing Online. I have gone through all of my uploads on Commons a second time to ensure that each has an active URL in the source field which links to the item's page at the Danish National Museum that clearly states the license for the images is CC-BY-4.0. The rest of the images on the article are either PD by virtue of being old, or are recent but have been freely licensed by their creators. I have zero issue with any coordinator or any other image reviewer digging through them with a fine-toothed comb, and in fact, I welcome it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand Buidhe's reasons for their comments on galleries, and I understand your response. Obviously either of you may add whatever you wish, but as things stand I believe that the position will be clear to the closing coordinator.
I may come across as "belt, braces and a piece of string" but image licencing is important and when an experienced reviewer feels driven to an oppose, the coordinators need to sit up and take notice. Thank you for double checking and for your detailed response above. We'll now consider how to take things forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand. I have absolutely no problem with people reviewing my work and my use of images - I wouldn't be here at FAC if I did. I appreciate your stepping in to seek clarification, although I'm disappointed that none was forthcoming. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]
  • I would suggest adding alt text to at least the map image, as the caption doesn't make it clear how the distribution of groups is being presented (e.g., a map, graph, chart, etc.)
  • I went with "Map of the North American Arctic with colored zones to indicate the primary Inuit language or dialect spoken within the area" - does that suit? And are there any other images you would recommend an alt for? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WebAIM, "Every image must have an alt attribute". (This is because every image in a Wikipedia article links to another URL. According to WebAIM, "An image that is the only thing inside a link must never have a missing or empty alt attribute"). This is why if the alt text would mostly repeat a caption, I would recommend just doing alt=refer to caption. Heartfox (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heartfox, extremely sorry - I only just remembered to do this now. I've put the "refer to caption" tag on most things, but for a couple where the caption wasn't as self-explanatory, I added fuller alt text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source thoughts

  • Why is Bird 2002 a reliable source? It appears to be a self-published report that was submitted to the UN
  • I'm not sure self-published is the right descriptor. It was prepared by Bird for Pauktuutit, a national-level Inuit women's organization, as a report on a major research project they undertook regarding rights to the amauti (as well as the relevant background leading up to Project Amauti), and submitted at a UN summit. I'm fairly sure you have to be invited to speak at those, although admittedly the UN website isn't very clear on that. Also, I realize the organization was unlinked in the reference so I've linked it now.
    • I think of it like written testimony before a parliamentary committee. We wouldn't use the testimony itself as a source. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 01:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry to be argumentative, but this is a source I'm willing to quibble over (not least because it's used in History of Inuit clothing more substantially, and I plan to take that to FA eventually as well). I believe the report meets our "acceptable use of self-published works" criteria. Pauktuutit as an organization is a subject-matter expert on the question of Inuit women's issues, having studied and published on the topic since the 1980s. Their work in the area of Inuit clothing/IP protection and the report itself specifically have been cited in other reliable works, ([9], [10], [11] for a couple of examples) and the report was cited as a document for discussion at a World Intellectual Property Office invitational workshop in 2019 ([12]); all of which indicates to me that it is considered a reliable source by experts, and so should be by us as well.
  • It is, see the source that starts with "Kobayashi Issenman, Betty; Rankin, Catherine (1988b)."
  • Why is Pauktuutit: Inuit Women of Canada a reliable publisher?
  • See note under Bird - national-level Inuit women's organization that works in various fields including education. Since it's the only use of the source and the content is supported by the Truth & Reconciliation report, I'm willing to drop this one if you object to it strongly.
  • Why is Inuktut Tusaalanga a reliable publisher?
  • Published by Pirurvik, an Inuit educational centre that publishes Inuktut-language educational material. The Inuktut Tusaalanga site in particular has been given an award by the Canadian government ([13]) and is supported by the government of Nunavut (the polar bear "Nunavut" logo at the bottom of the page is a government icon - see here for confirmation).
  • Why is UpHere a reliable source?
  • Up Here is an established magazine with a reputation for quality, having won several journalistic awards over its 35+ year history. They accept outside pitches but not user-generated content, all stories are bylined, and the contact info for their editorial department is transparent and available. They include corrections when they make errors. The author of that particular article, Kassina Ryder, is as far as I can tell an experienced journalist in covering northern culture.
  • The way chapters from books is organized is strange, but I like it
  • I figured better to go alphabetical on the chapters since the names are the primary means of identification in the citations. Glad you like it :)

No spotchecks were done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 03:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! Hopefully that's sufficient to address any concerns. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reviewing the changes made after my comments last month --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 21:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely to Support Excellent article, in an area (clothing) where we have few very really strong articles. I will do some points soon, but nothing is likely to be major. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot-checks

[edit]
Sources don't need any interrogation. Everything is from reliable sources (anthropological or Inuit-focused journals). None of the citations are malformed or missing necessary parameters.

There are a lot of citations on this article. For that reason, I'm going to start with an unusually low 5% (which is still 15 citations). If there are more than 2 errors in that sample, I'll do another 15. If I need to do another 15, it'll be tomorrow or the day after. Given that the nominator has previously gone through FAC with a stellar sourcing record, I'm not concerned. Nominator has helpfully provided a list of her source access. Of the ones she does not have access to, I've been able to track down most online, so I don't think we'll struggle to get a representative survey.

  • Fns 1 and 2 – Pass
  • Fn 29 (end of Upper body garments subheading) - I had a brain fart and couldn't find where it said it, but it’s right at the beginning of p.42 – pass
  • Fn 35 (trousers and leggings) - this website is hideous, but it’s an established museum and does indeed support the statement – pass
  • Fn 20 (accessory garments) - google books preview was enough - pass
  • Fn 61 (accessory garments) - pass
  • Fn 7 (very end children's clothing) - this author has two articles with a very similar name, weirdly - also, pass
  • Fn 65 (end of accessory garments) - this one caught my eye because it’s fascinating - pass
  • Fn 68 (children's clothing) - this is pretty hardcore - also pass
  • Fn 105 (bird skins) - makes sense - pass (available online)
  • Fn 97 (other natural mammals) - this is the only fact in the article so far that I actually knew - pass
  • Fn 10 (construction and maintenance) - side note: construction feels like a weird word for this heading - pass, though MUSE did not work for me
  • Fn 145 (hide processing) - straightforward pass, paraphrasing across the board is really good (paraphrased but not so much that it’s impossible to find)
  • Fn 12 (major principles) - a brilliantly written section, clearly grounded in judicious research - pass
  • Fn 184 (decorative techniques) - pass (found online)
  • Fn 223 (decorative techniques) - PDF copy provided by nominator I'm not paying £7 for it. quote from paper: "Traditionally, kamiks had geometric patterns which ran vertically down the front on men's and horizontally around the top on women's". pass, but would probably be worth including that extra information about where the patterns go. also, standardise the tense (the nominated article has "are" for men and "were" for women, as if things have changed; Oakes' article says "were")

And just like that, we have 15. This one was really straightforward. I have literally no reservations in supporting the article on the quality and judiciousness of its sources. This has very clearly been a labour of love for the nominator, and I want to extend my sincere appreciation to her for making such an incredible, centralised resource. I love seeing this sort of stuff at FAC. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to throw in that I made the change proposed for the content at fn 223 and forgot to actually mention it here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a question about this bit, inhabiting the Arctic areas of North America and Greenland, from the lead. Why is Greenland specified here? It is a part of the Arctic areas of North America, but this bit makes it sound like a separate area from that.
  • Not everyone immediately pictures Greenland when they think North America, so I wanted to make it clear what's being included. Would one of "Arctic areas of North America, including the United States, Canada, and Greenland" or maybe "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland" be better?
  • Thank you for the response. Upon doing further research, it seems like people tie Greenland very closely to Europe even though geographically, it is very clearly a part of North America. Because of this, the current wording should be fine. That being said, I prefer "Arctic areas of the United States, Canada, and Greenland", but I will leave this choice up to you as you have more knowledge about this area than I do. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded it to that.
  • I have a comment about this part, Recent efforts by Inuit organizations to revive traditional cultural skills, from the lead. Instead of "Recent efforts", I would specify the time period that these efforts started as "recent" can mean something very different ten years down the line for instance. I would think it would be better to be more specific to help establish a clearer timeline for readers.
  • Swapped out to "Since the 1990s"
  • This is a minor suggestion, but it may be beneficial to link ruff in this part, and fringes, ruffs, and decorative inserts, especially since other clothing terms like fringe get wikilinks.
  • The ruff (clothing) article is pretty specific in referring to elaborate fabric collars worn in the 16th-17th centuries. It doesn't mention the more modern sense of the word, which can refer to trim on hoods. I think it might be confusing to link to.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I should have read that article more thoroughly so apologies for my mistake. You are right that it would be unnecessarily confusing so it would be best to keep it as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Tools" subsection, would it be possible to avoid having four citations together? I would think that would be considered an example of citation overkill. From my personal experience, I have seen around three citations being considered as the limit, but I do not know if there is a greater (and more formal) consensus about this. Another instance of this is in the "Research and documentation" section.
  • There isn't a formal limit, and normally I would try to stick to 3 or less. In the case of the tools section, each ref supports a chunk of the sentence but not the whole thing, in a way that makes it hard to separate into two sentences without wonking up the structure. For example, the first ref supports many of the tools but not the materials, the second ref supports some tools and some materials, the third supports other tools that aren't in the first, and the fourth supports the materials that weren't supported in the others. I did pull the 4th cite from "research and documentation" as it turned out I hadn't added any new content with it.
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence: Even after the decline of the residential schools, most day schools did not include material on Inuit culture until very recently. I would replace "until very recently" with something more specific as the current wording will change over time to mean something different.
  • Double checked and the source says "Smithsonian Institution", no specification.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I would not be surprised if this collection was not assigned to a specific Smithsonian museum and could be put on display in a number of locations since it could really fit into a number of these contexts. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your work on this article. It was a very fascinating read and I very much enjoyed it. My comments are focused on the prose and are relatively minor. I do not feel comfortable enough with image use policy to add anything to the discussion about how images are used in the article. Apologies for that. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support the article for promotion based on the prose once my comments have been addressed. I hope you have a wonderful week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aoba47, thanks for your comments here and again I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded above, most of them I've made the changes you requested, but in a couple I have some justifications. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond to everything. I agree with your justifications, and I will leave the Greenland matter up to you. I support the article for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. It is on a completely unrelated (and much more obscure) topic though so I understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you have a good rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • This is an interesting one. First comments below, more to follow:
  • as early as 24,000 years ago, and in northern Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE – I propose to use the same format for the years, either "years ago" or "BCE", to make those numbers directly comparable.
  • I used the "X years ago" phrasing because that's what the source said - I didn't want to overstep into OR/potential misstatement of the source by translating it into BCE. I'm fine to swap it to BCE if you don't feel that would be problematic though.
  • I don't see how a simple unit conversion could overstep into OR. As the sentence currently reads, the reader needs to think if they need to add or substract 2021 years from the first (or second) number to be able to compare those values. This is just disrupting reading flow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed
  • In Arviat, a hamlet in Nunavut, some women wear a beret, a cap introduced by French missionaries. – Here I wonder why this detail is relevant in this comparatively central article; you are talking about a single village? Mentioning this would imply that similar incidents did not occur in some other hamlets, is this the case?
  • It just happened to be an interesting tidbit that tied into the sentence about modern Inuit wearing caps. I don't have any indication as to whether it never happened elsewhere, only that it specifically did happen and became traditional in that one location. I'm not crazy attached to it though, I can pull it.
  • It would help to translate the Inuit terms in the image captions as well.
  • Done
  • Inuit groups that practiced kayaking regularly developed specialized garments – I don't understand why the "regularly" is needed here. I thought a particular group only need to invent it once?
  • Ah, that's meant to be "kayaking regularly", not "regularly developed". I'll reword.
  • For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. – This is not completely ideal since it introduces bias, but it might still be the best option. Unfortunately, some famous names such as "anorak" do not appear in the article because of this decision. If you would briefly mention the words of the other languages as well, would that clutter the article too much? Also, can you back up this decision a bit, i.e. why Inuktitut and not another language? Has this precedence in the sources? This reasoning could be added as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So...my reasoning here came from a few things.
    First, the majority of English sources that I found used the Inuktitut words (particularly Sinews of Survival which is the main comprehensive book on the topic). Most sources don't discuss this choice explicitly in the text (Kobayashi Issenman for example mentions using the Inuktitut for place names but doesn't seem to talk specifically about using it for garment names). My guess is that's probably because those sources are mostly Canadian and because Inuktitut is the largest Canadian Inuit language with 35k+ speakers and official recognition in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. While some sources mention other terms here and there, which I have sometimes used in the article, I never found sources that comprehensively listed the outfit equivalents in other languages like Iñupiaq and Greenlandic.
    Second, I believe it would be overly cluttery to mention every equivalent word that I could find - as I quoted from Kobayashi Issenman, the vocabulary is extensive and there are lots of dialects/regional variations and not necessarily any one "official" word. Once I start including some dialects, where do I draw the line?
    I did find a source for the origins of parka/anorak so I've put that in - couldn't find a place to logically insert it so it's a footnote for now, but I'm happy to move it if you can see somewhere better to put it. It's at the end of the upper body garments subsection now.

Thanks for your comments Jens Lallensack, looking forward to the rest! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • which confirms significant consistency – When reading "significant", I think about statistics. I think something can be significantly different, but I don't see how a lack of difference can possibly be significant. Would it hurt to remove this word, or what exactly does it actually add?
  • When you think about how much clothing styles and technologies change, it's basically jaw-dropping to consider that the ancestors of the Inuit invented a clothing technology so effective that it remained in use for something like 24,000 years. Aesthetics changed here and there, and new techniques developed, but the system of layered insulating furs sewn in specific shapes to capture and retain heat while permitting ventilation remained the same. That's significant.
  • It is indicated that ulu knives are made from "bone, baleen, antler and ivory", and later it is stated that they are made from "Wood and stone" and "meteoric iron or copper". Is this correct?
  • Yup. There was no "prescribed" material. The Inuit used whatever was at hand and could be made nice and sharp. The first sentence describes materials for all traditional tools, including ulu. Wood and stone were also used for ulu - wood to make grips, stone for the blade. Here's an example I'd kill to have a free picture of. When they found metal, they made blades from it, like this one - ivory handle, iron blade. Later, when white people showed up, they started to make them from metal much more systematically, but that wasn't an option for the majority of their history.
  • bespoke paper patterns – link?
  • Instead, frost accumulates on the surface of fur – bit difficult to imagine. Does it mean that sweat is migrating through the skin and hair to the outside?
  • I wound up re-reading some sources and rewriting a bunch of the paragraph. Better now?
  • Shamans from groups which permitted the hunting of albino caribou, – I don't understand the significance of the albino caribou. Other groups did not permit hunting those? The albino caribou is somehow linked to the color-inverted parkas?
  • Yes, it was specifically noted in the source that those groups allowed it; by inference, other groups didn't for whatever reason. Lots of hunting societies have taboos or beliefs about differently-colored animals. Some groups forbid hunting such animals for spiritual reasons; the source didn't get into detail about why but it appears that the Copper and Caribou Inuit encouraged it for spiritual reasons, and when someone killed one, the shaman got an incredible and visually distinct white parka. Remember, until basically the modern period, everyone's caribou garments were colored basically like a caribou - brown, with some white trim. Most caribou don't have a lot of white fur, so you can't get a white parka unless you get an albino caribou. Thus, for the shaman to have a parka with inverse coloration is a big deal - they look different, they look connected to that specific spiritually-significant animal in a way that sets them apart from laypeople. Call it the equivalent of a cardinal's red robe - you know the guy wearing it is something special.
  • She doesn't mean literal text... she's talking metaphorically about the culture and history that underlies individual kamiit designs, how they often represent personal or spiritual things that may not be apparent just from looking at the boot, and how it can be impossible to properly understand what was intended without the actual designer there to interpret things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion on the above oppose: My reading of WP:GALLERY is that the use of galleries is in-line with the MOS. "Fashion" is even listed as a topic for which image galleries may be suitable. I therefore don't see any issue in this regard. I consequently may support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Johnbod

[edit]

Comments Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder (will prob support). Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having followed the improvements over the last few weeks, and making trivial edits, am very happy to recommend that this impressive, fascinating article is promoted to FA. Excellent work. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, criteria for my support are quality of sources, prose and image use (I'm also not convinced by Buide's oppose above). Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
  • I've reworded this bit (and a bit of the lead in general)
Apart from the large number of modern archaeologists who object to the whole "Venus" name, many others restrict the term to finds from Western Europe. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not the best name, but Venus figurines of Mal'ta is kinda their most commonly recognized name for better or worse. If you'd like, we can say human figurines?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So is the 22 kya thing referring to Mal'ta?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's for sure the Mal'ta culture, that's discussed in detail at history of Inuit clothing. The only thing I wasn't sure of was whether or not the figurines were the specific Venus figurines you were talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't make any other figurines. In that case, link "carved figurines" to Venus figurines of Mal'ta and somewhere at least say the words "Mal'ta–Buret' culture"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a bit detailed given the tightness of the summary in the main article here; the sub-article gets into it in more detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just asking to actually have a link to that sub-article. If the Mal'ta–Buret' culture is so unimportant to not even name, then don't include the 22,000 year thing at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, linked the culture. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canada and Greenland as early as 2500 BCE" I think we're talking about the Saqqaq culture which arrived at the Canadian archipelago and Greenland right around that date. It's a bit too early to be referencing the Qilakitsoq mummies, so the source is probably just simplifying things using that date. Am I correct? If so, including all of Canada may not be the best description, and you might wanna move the date to the mummies but that's optional since Qilakitsoq is a Saqqaq site. Sorry this is coming so late, I just noticed it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Dunkleosteus77, I didn't notice this comment until now. The Kobayashi Issenman source mentions archaeological finds on Baffin & Ellesmere Islands dating back to as early as 2500 BCE, as well as Independence I culture finds in Greenland. and Stenton talks about archaeological evidence of pre-Dorset clothing-making tools. Neither mentions the "Saqqaq culture"; both use Dorset and pre-Dorset. I'm not comfortable extrapolating this to be about the Saqqaq without a reference.
    Not sure what you mean when you say "move the date to the mummies". Evidence for tools for making skin-clothing "as early as 2500 BCE" is correct to the sources cited; the mummies are carbon-dated to c. 1475, so that's quite a significant difference. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a great overview of the Saqqaq, and on p. 96 it mentions, "Another unusual find category from Qeqertasussuk are skin fragments, some being clothing. The foot of a kamik-stocking appears to have been made in the same fashion as more recent inner boots: a sole and a tube, sewn together with very fine thin twisted sinew. Within the inner boot there was some plant material believed to be the remains of a lining (Møller 1991), which in more recent times was usually made of lyme grass." The Qeqertasussuk site dates to 2400 to 900 BCE, but I'm still kinda convinced the source is just oversimplifying given this which goes over the earliest dates of Greenlandic colonization. And, if we're going off just stone tools instead of fabric samples, I'm worried how the source has decided to set its cut-off point especially considering that's not its main focus, since delicate sewing needles were invented before Greenland was colonized. What are your source's exact words?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That first source you gave comes back as a 404 for me. The Stenton source is linked in the article and is available on JSTOR, and here's a Google Books link to Sinews with a search for 2500 highlighted. It's probably easier if you read them and see what they say rather than me trying to figure out what you want me to quote, since the content covers more than a single sentence. The second source you cited mentions that earliest colonization of Greenland occurred around 2500 BCE. I honestly don't understand what issue you're trying to highlight. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just link whatever culture you're discussing, because like I said earlier, if it's not worth mentioning by name, it's not worth mentioning at all   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put pre-Dorset and Dorset, since that's what my sources say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Drive by comments

[edit]
  • Cites 23, 83, 128, 180 and several others contain p/pp errors.
  • All of these errors should now be dealt with.
Cites 83 and 262 not resolved.
Sorry, should be now.
  • Cite 236 has an em dash in the page range.
  • Fixed
It's not.
What on earth...Okay, it should be now. Not sure what happened there.
  • There seems to be inconsistency in the use or non-use of sentence case in the titles of works. For example in "Websites".
  • I used the same case that the source used. Newspapers tend to use sentence case for their titles, while other websites mostly use title case. I couldn't find guidance on how to resolve that in the MOS, but I could very well be blind :)
The MoS takes a lot of getting used to. "The English-language titles of compositions (books and other print works, songs and other audio works, films and other visual media works, paintings and other artworks, etc.) are given in title case, in which every word is given an initial capital except for certain less important words (as detailed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Composition titles). The first and last words in an English-language title are always capitalized." sums it up. For detail see MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you. I've sorted it, and have also linked publishers and journals in the first instance, as I realized I hadn't done that consistently either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Gog. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Support from Sdkb

[edit]

 Doing... {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as you can probably tell from the time delay/the size of this edit haha, I got sucked into this article and went through it with a pretty fine-toothed comb. Overall, it's in excellent shape: comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced. My comments below reflect a lot of nitpicky things, many of which are moreso suggestions rather than major concerns that would lead to an oppose if unaddressed, so please feel free to disagree with me if anything doesn't seem like it'd be an improvement to the page. Once the few more significant issues (e.g. religion section) have been resolved, I look forward to supporting, and I hope the smaller suggestions are helpful for tuning it up to get it to the best possible state. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be possible for you to hat out or otherwise separate any ones that you consider dealt with, even if only temporarily? I get lost in huge swaths of wikitext and it would make it easier for me to find and reply to ones that are getting threaded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some tense inconsistency. In the second paragraph, have historically been consistent uses [grammar nerds, please help me out] tense, different from past tense, which would be were historically consistent. The paragraph later switches to past tense with varied and decorated. Overall, we need to make a decision about whether to describe Inuit clothing as a past aspect of history or something contemporary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't, really - it is distinctly both. Much of what was traditionally practiced, particularly the nomadic hunting lifestyle that followed the migration cycles of useful animals, is pretty clearly past tense. On the other hand, there's also a lot that's still done more or less in line with traditional methods and patterns. So it's neither entirely historical nor entirely contemporary, and it would be misleading to try to make it a bright line. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that, using a mix of past and present tense seems fine. The most I ask, then, is just that we put consideration into which places use past and which use present, and that we don't mix them when referring to the same thing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous 3 done
  • In the sentence where Betty Kobayashi Issenman is brought up, I'm not sure it's necessary to cite her by name or to quote her directly. WP:INTEXT suggests caution about when to use in-text attribution, and this material doesn't seem to be among the most subjective or potentially controversial. Stating basic factual information rather than quoting it is generally preferred. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for the block quote in the next paragraph. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really possible to reword those quoted sentences without closely paraphrasing; better to quote outright in my opinion than try to contort myself around rewriting what's already been elegantly put. As for Kobayashi Issenman, she was generally considered the all-around expert on the broad topic of Inuit clothing (Oakes & Riewes probably know more about footwear, but that's a subtopic). Sinews was big enough in its field that it smashed GNG easily, which is something for a reference book from 1997. In my opinion it is necessary to introduce her and Sinews, as the article relies so much on her scholarship. I'm responding to these point by point so forgive me if this touches on something you mention later, but I also mention several other experts a number of times in the article, so to me it doesn't feel out of place, as it occurs throughout. It's also something I did at Dali (goddess) and it wasn't considered an issue there.
    I speak a little more to paraphrasing below. If she's so important to the topic's research history, would it make sense to talk about her in the research and documentation section below? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great tragedy is that she wrote quite a lot of the significant work on the topic, and everybody cites her, but nobody that I've found has actually written about her and her research. That's why I bluelinked Sinews but not her. I also think it might be undue to focus on one researcher in that section in the main article, since it's a really condensed summary of what has become a fairly substantial article on its own. (I suppose it could be worth trying to squeeze anything I can find from the Sinews reviews for the research article, but that's a separate future FAC :P)
  • For the sake of consistency, this article uses Canadian Inuktitut terminology, unless otherwise noted. is a MOS:SELFREF. I've only recently come across this area, which appears pretty complex, so I'm not confident making a suggestion about whether it needs wrapping in {{xref}}, conversion to a footnote, or something else. But I'd appreciate hearing from someone more familiar about how this sentence should be handled. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{xref}} appears to be for text that refers to other Wikipedia articles, so it doesn't quite fit. I had this conversation at the GA review, and I don't believe a footnote is suitable. I want this information to be visible and clear to the reader without having to click elsewhere, which many readers (especially on mobile) don't do. It's rare, but per MOS:SELFREF, References that exist in a way that assumes the reader is using an encyclopedia, without reference to the specific encyclopedia (Wikipedia) or the manner of access (online), are acceptable.
    Sounds fine; glad to hear it's been considered. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, that article says that ITK approved a standard orthography that uses Roman letters, but syllabics still use the 1976 standard developed by ITK as far as I can tell. I still put your source in since it's more specific about the date.
    Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing more inconsistent tense use: Parkas for women were called amauti and had large pouches starts in past, but then the paragraph moves to present. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, I wound up moving some stuff down into the "decorative techniques" area.
  • Prev 3 done
  • The reference doesn't get into it so I can't put this in the article, but consider that for white people in the 1800s-early 1900s, these would have been incredibly exotic and interesting garments. Women wearing pants was weird enough for Euro-Americans at the time, but the fact that they had these big huge storage pockets for carting stuff around was fascinating to them. Remember, cargo pants were only invented in the 1940s or so :)
    That's interesting to know! I think the current article text is fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically that's because the structure of the garments were the same, just made of different fur as seasonally appropriate. I get into it in the materials section - caribou outfits were for cold dry winter, seal outfits were for wet cool summer. Layer up in winter or as otherwise necessary.
  • Can you specify where you mean?
    Just ctrl+f search for "c. 1". I'm not sure using the circa template is required, but many people don't know what "c." means, so I think having the tooltip (as the circa template does) is helpful. If you choose not to use it, you'll still want to replace the space with a non-breaking one. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh duhhh, I wasn't thinking of the captions, sorry. Fixed now :)
  • The sentence about Arviat women wearing berets is interesting. But it looks to be a pretty tiny place, and there's no indication of this elsewhere. Is it really a significant enough factoid to warrant inclusion? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since someone else commented about it above, I pulled it.
  • I changed the paragraphs about hoods/hats and mitts to be completely present tense as those are still commonly used in the same fashion today, belts I left past tense since that mostly concerns historical usage.
    Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delinked for simplicity
  • Above two both done
  • Hairstyles for pubescent girls also changed to indicate their new status. Would it be possible to give a concise explanation of how, or is it complicated/varied enough that explaining it would be WP:UNDUE? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC neither source got into the detail of what changed. I don't have the sources right now to double check; my library made me give Sinews back and those pages are not in the GBooks preview, and I don't have the Arctic Clothing pdf at hand.
    Thinking about it, hairstyles is a little beyond the scope of this article on clothing, so that's probably reason enough to not both to go into further detail. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was able to check Arctic Clothing on my break and it barely gives any detail, and that was only for Greenland anyway. But Inuit hairstyles beckons, I suppose.
  • use of seabird skins is now rare even in places where traditional clothing is still common Is there a particular reason why, or is it just a trend? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birdskin sucks in comparison to basically any other skin; I talk about it in the materials section. Nobody really did much birdskin sewing unless they really had no other options, so nowadays with all the modern commercial options available, most people are going to avoid birdskin unless they're making a particular choice to use it.
    Yep, I wrote the above before I'd read through the rest of the materials section; this seems covered fine there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For [14], there's a 3D model of the outfit in addition to the photo. I'm not sure if Wikipedia has the technical infrastructure to support 3D imagery (probably not), but it'd be super cool to have that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the 3D models are CC, sadly.
  • For the Inuit, sewing is and always has been a female activity. Every single source I read used "seamstresses," talked about it as a woman's craft, how it's a part of women's identity, etc etc, even when referring to modern times. Every modern Inuit designer I've read about has been female. Every cultural education program I've read about talks about engaging women. I have literally never seen a single reference to a male taking up sewing as a major activity. I can't guarantee that there's not a single man or nonbinary person who's taken up sewing (only the Sith deal in absolutes), but in my opinion, it would be both incorrect and culturally inappropriate to use gender-neutral terms here.
    Sounds reasonable. There's still one related line I'd like clarified, though (see below; ctrl+f for "conflicts with"). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last 2 done
  • {{ill}} linked it since it has an article in German
  • Done
  • I don't think they had jammies. None of the sources I read (and I read...several) mentioned it.
  • Done
  • These garments were valued by women as they were simple to make "Appreciated" might be a better word here than "valued", as the latter tends to refer to something rarer or better rather than just cheaper. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, reading the next sentence, I guess they were considered better, too. Still, the "as" in the previous sentence implies a causal connection, and something being simple to make doesn't alone make it more valuable, so I'd still suggest switching to "appreciated". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labor-saving simplicity of construction is precisely what made fabric garments valuable to the women. The entire construction process for full skin garments could take hundreds of hours of hide processing, cutting, planning, and sewing. In comparison, sewing pre-made fabric together saves a ton of work. That's valuable, in the same way that your car is valuable because it saves you the time and energy of walking.
    As I understand it, "valuable" refers to something's worth, not how hard it is to acquire. If something becomes easier to acquire, that tends to make it less valuable, because it pushes the price down. You seem to be using "valued" as a synonym for "appreciated" here, which is a valid sense of the word, but I still think it'd be a little better to just say "appreciated" to eliminate the potential confusion. It's a small thing, though, so no worries if you still prefer "valued". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second dictionary sense of "to value" is "to consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial," which I think applies here, both in the sense that these items were expensive status symbols, and because they beneficially saved women a bunch of hard work.
  • It is important to note that these new materials... Just say These new materials... It's not our role to say what is or isn't important to note, and it's unneeded wordiness. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. The previous two paragraphs indicate a lot of changes to the traditional system. It should be made clear to the reader that despite that influx of foreign materials and garments, the Inuit didn't abandon their traditional clothing system. Instead, they adopted what worked for them.
    The relevant link here is MOS:EDITORIAL, which appears to speak pretty specifically to this situation. There are other ways to indicate the "despite" aspect, which I think will still come across clearly to readers. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I tweaked it.
  • More tense confusion in the construction section: Women were responsible, then switching to These skills have historically been passed. I'll stop noting specific instances, but this is something that needs fixing throughout the article. This is something that should be given careful consideration: from the fact you chose to work on this article, I'm guessing you have an interest in cultural preservation, but it's also important for neutrality that, when something has become historical (i.e. no longer worn in its original everyday context, or worn only in significantly altered descendant versions), we note so honestly. I anticipate that you'll discuss cultural preservation farther down the page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed in the process of rewording as above
  • Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to maintain the survival of the family and the larger group Awkward wording. I'd suggest changing to Garments had to be sewn well and properly maintained to for the family and the larger group to survive. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wound up flipping the sentence over, I think that works better
  • Sure, done
  • Production of clothing was an intensive communal process undertaken by entire families gathered together. This conflicts with the earlier statement that women were entirely responsible for the work. Did the men in the families help out? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded to be more clear - every family in a community basically set up into a camp following the hunt. The women sewed their collective asses off while the men butchered the meat and dealt with (and this isn't explicitly in any of my sources so I didn't put it in the article) I assume whatever community business there was that wasn't sewing. Also I happened to find a sort-of estimate of how many seals were needed to clothe a whole family, so I stuck that in since I already had the caribou estimate. Neat!
  • I'm not sure. I honestly hate trying to judge notability by NPROF, I'm so bad with it. I remember DGG saying once upon a time that anyone with a professorship at a major university likely qualified, so I redlinked her just in case.
  • Transitioning to the quote in the Oakes sentence introduces some plurality grammar concerns, and same as above, I'm not sure the material is necessary to quote. I'm guessing you were trying to avoid any plagiarism concerns, but it'd be helpful to hear from a copyright person as to whether a basic list like that would run any risk of copyright violation without the quote marks. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tweaked the sentence and trimmed the quote a bit, but I still think it should be quoted, as it comes directly from her fieldwork.
  • Having the caribou hide picture be from Scandinavia is slightly odd, but if that's the best hide picture available, that's probably a worthwhile tradeoff. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, same issue with the sealskin pic, which is from the German Fur School. I don't have any clear color photos of either type of skin harvested by Inuit specifically, unfortunately.
    Yeah, the pictures we use are fine, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the latter being a uniquely Inuit development To improve flow, I would move this farther down the paragraph to where you talk about the waterproof stitch. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded slightly.
  • wearing clean clothing on a hunt was important, The start of the sentence indicates that we're talking about religious importance specifically here, not general importance. Therefore, no need for the comma after "important". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded slightly.
  • I'm guessing "innitaq" is the plural of "innitait", but I can't be sure. More generally, all the foreign words in the article are italicized, which is good, but there are a lot of them, which makes the prose much harder to read for someone who doesn't speak the Inuit languages. I would try to use English words wherever you reasonably can—garments were laid over the rack near a heat source seems like it'd work fine. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thought on foreign words: it'd be nice in some cases to have audio or IPA pronunciations available. For clothing items with their own articles like amauti, a place for that would be at the start of those articles (which is beyond the scope of this FAC), but for others without articles, it might be appropriate to add them here, perhaps in the table. I'm not sure if we're allowed to put pronunciations outside the lead, though, and in any case this isn't something strictly necessary; it'd just be nice since the pronunciations in many cases aren't intuitive to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworded the innitaq bit. As for pronounciation, Iiiiii don't actually speak Inuktitut and I'm not comfortable with IPA stuff...I could make a go of it if you really think it's important but it's a bit beyond my normal capabilities as an editor.
    No worries, then—we definitely don't want non-Inuit (literally) speaking for Inuit by trying to pronounce their words. Just something to keep in mind if you ever come across PD recordings or meet someone who wants to help. For IPA, I not too long ago had to dive into that for the first time myself; I found that many dictionaries included IPA pronunciations, and it wasn't too hard to translate into {{IPAc-en}}. I'm not having any luck there for the Inuit words in this article, though, unfortunately—nothing on Dictionary.com or sources like this. I think for our purposes here the Inuktitut syllabics are enough, as they're workable for a really dedicated reader who uses the table at the syllabics page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Betty Kobayashi Issenman is introduced with her full name three times, and with a description the first and third time. I would include her full name and description the first time, and then just her last names, or maybe "Kobayashi Issenman, the Inuit clothing expert". That makes the fact that readers are being reminded of her rather than introduced to her more explicit. Also, the fact that her book, Sinews of Survival, is notable probably means she is as well, and should therefore be redlinked. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the second use of her full name; in the case of "Major principles", I think I'd prefer to keep it like that for the benefit of those mobile readers skip through articles section by section (the horror) and may not have encountered her earlier in the article. Per my comments above, I don't think she actually hits NPROF or NAUTHOR (only one book IMO is not sufficient), so I haven't redlinked her.
    Okay, I'll defer to your preference then. This touches again on the question of repeated info where I think it might be helpful to have a broader discussion at MoS at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the winter temperature; could you note the typical summer temperature as well? Overall, a little more climate information wouldn't hurt, as the extreme climate is a major influence on the clothing. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have references for the summer temperatures offhand, and I'm not sure where I would put that...open to suggestions though, assuming I can find something?
    I would put it in this sentence: For the warmer weather of spring and summer, where temperatures average X °C (Y °F) in [region], only a single layer of clothing was necessary. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done my best at searching, I couldn't find a solid easy-to-cite reference for an average summer temperature. There's this map from 2007 that's built on NOAA data, but I can't cite a user-created map, and I frankly don't understand how to produce useful results from the NOAA Arctic Datasets website, let alone citable ones.
    For something at a pretty general level, USA Today says 40s F. I imagine there's plenty of specific data, but the tricky thing here is that we want a more general take. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is brand-placed advertorial content (Google "Leaf Group"), and it gives no indication as to where that estimate came from. I wouldn't call that a RS, let alone a high-quality FAC-qualifying source.
    Ack, I probably should've looked for more than two seconds and/or searched when I'm more awake haha. Second try: https://www.gov.nu.ca/eia/information/nunavut-faqs. Nunavut doesn't exactly overlap with Inuit territory, but is it close enough? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, Nunavut is most definitely Inuit territory. The name means "our land" in Inuktitut :) In any case, good find, it led me to the Canadian Climate Stations that the FAQ cites. I've used those instead, citing the lowest and the highest average summer temp given by the stations that meet World Meteorological Organization standards.
    Aaannnd I managed to find a way to stick my foot in my mouth again before we're done haha. Anyways, looks good! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major principles section contains some repetition of facts elsewhere in the article: garments were individually tailored, work was divided by gender, etc. It's not ideal, but I'm not sure there's really anything to be done about it, as the information is relevant in both places. How Wikipedia articles deal with the fact that some readers jump to different sections rather than reading straight through (relevant also to my comments about Kobayashi Issenman and MOS:REPEATLINK) is something that should probably be considered in a broader forum at some point. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the decorative techniques section, as above, when there are differences between the genders, this article currently discusses the male variant first. This might be worth switching up, and the decorative techniques section might be a good place to do it, as it sounds like women's clothing has more ornamentation than men's. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched up the order.
  • The article uses the word "even" a fair amount. In some places, it connotes an element of surprise, which threatens a bit the detached scholarly tone we want to take. I don't object to leaving it in where you want to, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbal tic, I've trimmed a bunch of them.
  • The sentence where Riewe is introduced looks to me like another instance where we needlessly include in-text attribution and a quote for a basic factual list. Looking at MOS:QUOTE, I'm not sure using quotes this way is strictly against guidance, but it wouldn't be my preference: readers who want attribution can always find it in references, and when the information is not controversial, the important thing is the information itself, not who said it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Imo this is an interesting enough fact and a specific enough list that I'm not comfortable rewording it, and I'd prefer to keep the quote.
    Fair enough. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret WP:RNPOV to mean that we shouldn't write Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt pleased the animal's spirit directly. Instead, we could say Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt was said to please the animal's spirit. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the bear's spirit departed, it took the spirits of the tools with it and used them in the afterlife. Again, this is a religious belief which needs to be attributed to the religion rather than stated directly as fact. I'm guessing this issue will come up a few more times in this section; I won't list out all of them, but the point and suggested remedy is the same. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the above two, I've found this is a pretty common type of phrasing in academic sources dealing with religious beliefs, and I don't think it goes against NPOV to use it here. It would be repetitive to continually be repeating "the Inuit believed," "it was said," etc etc in a section where the context is clearly "what the Inuit believed about their clothes". I think we can trust the reader to understand that we are making a factual statement about what Inuit people believed, not a factual statement about reality.
    There is a bit of a tradeoff between wordiness and precise language here, yeah, but especially for sensitive topics like religion, I think we should err on the side of being precise. "Was said to please" isn't hugely longer than "pleased". I imagine that this question has probably come up before for religion articles—are you aware of any such discussions and what the consensus was? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any awareness of previous discussions on it. I still think it's quite clear from context that that it's a statement of fact about a belief rather than a fact about reality, without having to remind the reader of that in every sentence.
  • The position of the amulet on the clothing was in some cases as important as the item itself. It's odd to note how important the position is and then end the section without providing any information about it. If it's so important, shouldn't it be discussed? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blegh. I don't have the source anymore to double check as it was an interlibrary loan, and it will take several weeks to get back as it was from another province and I don't currently have any free ILL slots. The page in question isn't on GBooks and there are no PDFs of the book anywhere. I don't recall it going into specifics about what individual positions meant, but I don't presently have the means to check.
    Due weight is determined by sources, so if you don't recall the book going into specifics, they're presumably not important enough to require adding. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded & added a Kobayashi Issenman cite. How's that?
  • In addition to their everyday clothing, many Inuit had a set of ceremonial clothing This contradicts the earlier statement that most people only had one set of clothing, which was made without caveat. The earlier statement should probably be qualified to say only one set of everyday clothing or something like that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Sinews is actually more ambiguous here than I thought. Page 40 says "a rich man, a successful hunter, can have two or more sets of clothing for himself and his family," and talks about how "the traditional style of life demands a set of new clothes for each of the two seasons." I may have misinterpreted that to mean that most people only had one set, especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets. I'll just remove the "one set" statement entirely.
    It's too bad to not have that sentence, as how many sets of clothing people owned is a very relevant piece of information for this article. If you find coverage of it elsewhere in the future, I'd encourage re-adding something. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er...but I said that I do mention it? "Especially since apparently under "Construction" I talk about family members having two sets"
    Oops, I missed that. I think we're good here, then. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some inconsistency in the formatting of captions: " – Royal Ontario Museum" has a dash, whereas ", Greenland National Museum" has a comma. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash turned into comma
  • Overhunting led to a significant depletion of caribou herds in some areas, and strong opposition to seal hunting from the animal rights movement led to a major decline in the export market for seal pelts, and a corresponding drop in hunting as a primary occupation. I was waiting for this sort of material to come up. Maybe it's just my personal interests, but I'd like to hear a little more. Was the overhunting all from non-Inuit or was some of it from Inuit themselves? Did environmental activists oppose seal hunting just for non-Inuit, or did some of the more extreme groups oppose it for everyone, including Inuit peoples? Were any laws passed that made it more difficult to create traditional skin clothing? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is discussed in detail in the history article; it's a bit too much to get into in the main. By and large it was whitey's fault; the Inuit have historically been pretty good about managing their hunting without overexploitation. Environmental activists generally oppose all seal hunting, and since in Canada most seal hunting is done by Inuit, they were consequently the people who got most fucked over when the bans came down. As for laws, there's a hunting quota in Canada, and you can't hunt whitecoats (baby seals) here at all. Again though, in my opinion this is all a bit detail for the main overview article when there's a subtopic.
    Having that info in the subtopic page sounds fine; thanks for the details! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unusual to have the history section so late in an article. It seems to work alright enough here, though; I'm not sure moving it up would've reduced the need for repetition much. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The research and historiography section seems a bit overlong—this kind of historiography is probably of significant interest to the researchers writing many of this article's sources, but it's of less interest to Wikipedia's readership of the general public. Especially given that there's a spinoff article, could the coverage here be shortened? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the gallery perfectly acceptable per the WP:Gallery policy. I hope the coordinators do not give weight to Buidhe's oppose above—while it perfectly appropriate to have non-policy based preferences, it is not appropriate to use FAC !votes as leverage to force one's personal preferences on others, and it is especially inappropriate to tangle the issue up with unspecified copyright concerns upon which Buidhe has refused to elaborate. I should disclose that I am not a neutral party on this issue, having recently encountered opposition from Buidhe at my own FAC when I declined to remove a gallery. Buidhe is a respected editor who does a lot of valuable work, but this is a concerning pattern. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question about the gallery, though—is there a reason it's split in two? On my display, that leads to five images on the first row, one on the next, five on the next, and one on the last. I wish there were better tuning tools available. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Top row is portrait ish images, bottom is landscape ish; dividing it up was a suggestion from Johnbod. On my screen each one covers exactly one row, so I think this may simply be a not-easily-resolvable screen size issue (see also the sfn column thing below).
  • Having a see also section with only a single link feels a little stubby. Would it be possible to link Yup'ik clothing somewhere in the body instead so that the section could be cleared? Alternatively, it'd seem appropriate to include in the section clothing articles for every major cold-weather culture. Many of them may not have a dedicated article yet, in which case we could use section links. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, seeing the {{Folk costumes}} navbox at the bottom, maybe it'd be better to just add any missing entries to there rather than trying to duplicate the navbox in a see also section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cheated and got it into the text under "Accessories". I would have linked it up at the top under "Traditional outfit", but that sentence doesn't specifically call out any one culture (it links to a bunch of broad concept articles) so it didn't feel right. None of the other circumpolar peoples have articles about their clothing except the Yup'ik.
  • Having the references be entirely SFNs is quite nice. As they're quite short, you might want to consider having three columns to reduce the length of the section. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template scales to your window size automatically - at its normal size, mine shows 3 columns. If I make the window hugelarge to match my ludicrously wide curved monitor, I get 5 columns, and if I squash it I can get it down to one.
  • And more about that last navbox..."folk costumes" feels like a kinda gross label to me, as "costumes" connotes a shallowness that belies the serious, practical elements of Inuit clothing discussed here. Folk costume appears to be located at that title, and moving it would be beyond the scope of this FAC, but it might be worth discussing whether the navbox could switch to using one of the alternative terms the article identifies. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of that is anything I can fix in this FAC though.
    I'm not familiar enough to know, but I've always assumed that FAC reviews can include issues with templates used in an article, as {{Folk costumes}} is here, since readers don't really distinguish between what's a template and what's not. That question might be something to discuss at WT:FAC sometime (if it hasn't already been discussed before), but it's immaterial here, as this isn't something I'd hold up my full support over. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I think it would be fair to review stuff like issues where the article isn't linked in a navbox that's present in an article, or where a template is malfunctioning or otherwise causing problems, but given that "folk costume" is a) the title of the actual article and b) a legitimate scholarly term and not a label arbitrarily created by Wikipedians, I think trying to change those titles is well beyond the scope of this FAC.
  • There are some repeated links in the article. Some of them aren't of huge concern—I'm not an MOS:REPEATLINK stickler, having encountered as a reader infinity times as many instances where I wish there was a repeated link as times when I wish there wasn't—but for some very common terms like kayaking it doesn't seem necessary. The main thing I ask is that we be intentional about choosing when a link is repeated. This tool will let you see where they are. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have it, I just let some sneak in by mistake. They're clipped now.
  • Done

Moving to full support. All my major (and many minor) concerns have been adequately addressed. Article is comprehensive, scholarly, and well-referenced, deserving of featured status. As I mentioned above, I do not see the oppose as actionable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

Aside from everything else, I've now gone through all the comments re. the gallery and WP:Gallery itself and it appears to me that this article's gallery is within image policy. The fact that an example in the policy is fashion-related (Wedding dress) is persuasive -- Inuit clothing has a much smaller gallery that creates even less of an overbalancing issue IMO. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Inuit_clothing/archive1&oldid=1037739222"