Talk:History of Inuit clothing/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments
Quite an interesting article from a glance. Not seeing any quickfails - I tend to go through section by section to look at refs / grammar / etc. Should have a good amount looked/reviewed at within the next twenty-four hours. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Image licensing

 * File:Qilakitsoq woman's parka sealskin 1978.jpg
 * Source lists as CC BY-SA 4.0, so does Commons, no issues
 * File:Dorset, Norse, and Thule cultures 900-1500.svg
 * Reasonably-licensed own-work claim
 * File:Greenlandic scraper - extract from Wellcome M0015186.png
 * Source (though a bit of a pain to find) lists as CC BY-SA 4.0, so does Commons, no issues
 * File:Kalicho.jpg
 * Source claims the image is under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license, which is not acceptable. However, this does look to be a valid PD-old, with a non-creative (and therefore non-copyrightable) scanning
 * File:No-nb bldsa 3b027.jpg
 * Source indicates a creation date of 1888-1889 - valid PD-Norway
 * File:Inuitkvinder skraber rensdyrskind - Inuit women scraping caribou skin (15143756777).jpg
 * Source lists as CC BY-SA 2.0, so does Commons, no issues
 * File:QaMi 1+2.jpg
 * The Commons file claims that the sculptor gave permission for their figurines to be shared - though this isn't proven. I'd be inclined to say this is OK given the file is from 2006.
 * File:Throat singers 1999-04-07 (cut).jpg
 * Reasonable own-work claim.
 * File:Inuit t-shirt from Greenland.png
 * Source lists as CC BY-SA 4.0, so does Commons, no issues
 * File:Ktz-fashion-label-copies-inuit-design.jpg
 * Looks to be reasonable under the NFCC, though the file description page itself is a bit messed up

Overall, not really any issues - the iffiest one is File:QaMi 1+2.jpg, everything else seems non-problematic to me. As File:QaMi 1+2.jpg is from 2006, when our requirements for permission were, if I remember correctly, much less strict, I think it's reasonable to assume that the file was indeed uploaded with permission from the original sculptor, so there aren't any images in the article that must be removed or replaced. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I un-wonked the description for the KTZ comparison - I wish I could remember what I was doing there, but I don't have the foggiest. If the sculptural image is problematic, it can be removed - it's not hugely important. As for Kalicho, I have to assume that's boilerplate text on the British Museum's part - they can hardly put licensing restrictions on something that was drawn in 1577, lol. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good - up to you on File:QaMi 1+2.jpg, I don't have a strong opinion there. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Prehistoric development

 * - I'm going to be assuming good faith for the offline/paywalled references here (and throughout most of the article) that they are used appropriately/accurately.
 * the phrasing on this is quite awkward - too many qualifiers. Maybe write something like - the "may" in the second sentence is sufficient given the qualifier in the first sentence.
 * I swiped your wording wholesale.


 * Third paragraph - link "taboos"? (also, kinda curious why they had taboos preventing it but only at coastal sites, but not sure if that's explained or in scope of the article)
 * Done. As to the question, I've got no clue, and I didn't think it was really in-scope so I didn't go hunting for an explanation.


 * - maybe I'm not getting why this is interesting - is the feature unique among all discovered Inuit figurines? Because it doesn't seem like really a big deal, yet it's presented as such here.
 * It's unique because most prehistoric carved figures are found as just carvings. This one actually has little doll pants made of actual bearskin, and the fact that the pants survived to be found in the present day is a huge deal.


 * Also, wondering if Betty Kobayashi Issenman is potentially notable (good redlink target)?
 * I tried a BEFORE search on her, but didn't find enough independent content to hit GNG, and I don't think she meets NPROF as an independent academic, so I de-linked her. Sinews of Survival dings NBOOK though so I'm likely to create an article on that eventually.


 * just for consistency/clarity, I'd consider writing 1000 CE (or, well, whatever the source said).
 * Mmm, the source says "a thousand years old" rather than giving a specific date. I wasn't able to find anything more specific, so I'm not sure I want to get more specific either, in case I'm overstating the source.


 * I think the clause middle might be better as a parenthetical (and more descriptive, as "gut-skin coat" isn't a phrase people know instinctively).
 * Revised slightly. Thoughts?
 * Looks good to me now. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Overall, not too many issues in this section (though wow, this is quite dense to read - but I guess it's just a complicated and niche topic, so I should've expected that -_-). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

European contact

 * Images (both in this section and not under the subheading) look fine.
 * a few things - first, the reference in McGovern is split across p. 335 and 336. Secondly, the order here doesn't make sense - I'd do something like
 * Swiped your wording again


 * I am curious if we potentially have this image?
 * I just found a copy and uploaded it to Commons, and will stuff it into the article. (Actually, this wound up shoving enough other stuff down that I had to pitch the sculpture photo anyway, so that solves that.)


 * just curious - why three refs on this?
 * Mm, I figured anything to do with religious oppression is probably at least vaguely contentious - people do be protective of their religion - so I figured better to err on more refs than fewer. Plus, iirc without double checking, each ref referred to this happening in a different area of the arctic, so we also get confirmation that it was widespread and not confined just to one place.


 * I'm not a huge fan of the passive voice here - looking at the source, I think phrasing it like would be clearer. In fact, since the source says "denied", you could go further and say
 * Used a tweaked version of your second version.

Just a few things in this section. Doing the subsection next, of course. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Purposeful adoption of foreign garments

 * seems unnecessary.
 * I expanded it a bit for flow with the previous section. Just nuking it and starting with "The Inuit adopted..." felt abrupt.

No other issues in this section (sorry). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 14:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How dare you not find further issues with my work. I may have to dock your wages. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline since the nineteenth century

 * is ref 56 necessary here? the source is not used anywhere else and seems kinda redundant.
 * Yeah I can ditch it.


 * minor grammar issue - I'd rephrase to something like
 * Welllllllll...I reworded it a different way, see what you think.
 * Works for me, too. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * curious if you could provide a brief quote from the source here - I don't inherently have a problem with the word "interesting", but I'd like to make sure it's not editorializing.
 * GBooks is actually showing me p 135 of the book - . If that doesn't work for you, let me know.
 * Ah, I see now. This is fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

No other issues I see - the image is also fine. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 12:06, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Modern revitalization efforts

 * First image looks fine.
 * I thought this was poor grammar - but apparently people actually call it this? sigh, can't blame you when the article on Yukon does the same thing.
 * Yeah this is just a grammatical quirk I grew up with and can't get over; it was "the Yukon Territory" till 2003.


 * Doesn't matter for a GA, because it's easily verifiable, but should have a source.
 * It doesn't actually need a source per WP:MINREF/WP:WTC - the date is not contentious and is unlikely to be challenged.


 * I hate to be that guy but the last part of this doesn't sound encyclopedic (the "of course")
 * Ahhhhh ya got me. Tweaked.


 * I'd put "for example" before, not after, the main clause
 * Moved


 * this is kinda clunky. I'd try something more like (I'm a big fan of em dashes, probably more than appropriate, but you get the picture—I think these should be combined into no more than two sentences, and probably one.
 * This was actually an effort to get away from my normal tendency to write very long sentences :P


 * please trim to two refs or put these directly next to what they're verifying
 * Mm, I really hate refs in the middle of sentences, and there's no actual MOS limit on the number of sources that can be cited at the end of a sentence. Four is a little on the high side, but it's not out of line. I'd prefer not to drop any of them since they each verify a portion of the sentence.


 * out of order refs
 * Fixed


 * another "FA review will probably want a cite here, also not sure if indicating that it's located in the Northwest Territories is really necessary.
 * I don't see why we shouldn't, it's not as though the average reader will recognize the name. Same comment re: citing Nunavut's partition date, this is uncontentious and unlikely to be challenged.


 * Guessing the shirt is referring to the sentence ? Might move it up a paragraph or so. Also not relevant to most of the passage, so it felt a bit out of place - maybe expand on this a bit? The article's topic of "Inuit clothing", for the most part, seems to be "traditional clothing of the Inuit, and how it blends with modern society" - not "anything the Inuit wear", so this feels a bit off-topic.
 * I rearranged the images so the shirt is up in this section now. As for the relevancy - funnily enough if you look at Talk:Inuit clothing you can see a complaint about the opposite, basically that the article(s) ought to cover "anything the Inuit wear". In this case I thought the cultural blending was relevant - like yeah the Inuit are importing T-shirts, but they're also putting symbols of Inuit identity on them, basically reclaiming these "foreign" garments as their own in a small way. I could probably dig through my stash of as-yet-unused "contemporary Inuit fashion" sources to see if there's anything more, but I don't remember anything substantive.

No other issues as far as I can tell. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary fashion
(ooh, the spicy section)
 * grammar (needs a comma after "1990s")
 * Done


 * could be tightened - like
 * Wound up being the same length but it reads nicer


 * Not sure if the throat singers image is exactly relevant, here?
 * Yeahhhhhhhh ultimately I think you're right. I moved it back up. What I really want is a photo of one of the Project Atigi parkas, or another garment from the designers of one. Actually, fuck it, I've been putting off sending emails and I will go do that now.


 * Note [e] should go right after "Ava" instead of at the end of the sentence.
 * All the other notes are at the end of sentences. I'm gonna leave it.


 * I'm pretty sure the design is out of copyright at this point, meaning that a free image could be created (and additionally, this image is more unfree than necessary, as the garment is the only part that is inherently unfree even accepting that argument, while the actual photo here is also unfree). However, there is a decent argument to be made that it isn't realistically possible to go out and take a photo of either the original or the knock-off (as it was pulled) in which case I'd recommend updating the fair use rationale to explain that.
 * Hmm. Stand by. Okay, I've swapped it for a stack comprised of a free image of the parka and a separately-uploaded fair-use version of the KTZ parka. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

For how spicy this section was, there are very few issues here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I had fun writing it :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Looks good - accurately summarizes the body. Not seeing any more particular issues so I'll whip out the GA box template and see about passing this. Sorry for how long this review took. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Criteria
Nice job with this article! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 03:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)