Talk:Research on Inuit clothing/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Image notes:

The images themselves are good, but I might want to recommend moving some around. The lead has no images, while two of those currently in the article chop up sections a little. Right now, I'm inclined to suggest moving File:Inuk Woman (6819810943).jpg to the lead, as it's a nice, eye-catching image that's currently a bit awkwardly placed halfway through a section break. Vaticidalprophet 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've moved that one up and installed a copy of File:Qilakitsoq woman's parka sealskin 1978.jpg in the archaeology section to make it not look so barren. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Putting this and my other current review on 2O because I am clearly somewhere between grudgingly tolerated and actively unwanted on Wikipedia, and I should at least clear my head a bit and drop current obligations. Vaticidalprophet 10:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hiya :). I'll be giving a second opinion / finish the review. (opt) means I don't consider it part of the GA criteria. Article looks good! FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Femkemilene, thanks for jumping in on this one. I've made alterations below or explained my rationale otherwise. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. I'm happy., if you're happy too, could you pass the article? FemkeMilene (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do the honours. Thanks for picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 10:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Prose:
 * Consider splitting the lede in two for ease of reading
 * Done


 * 'Analysis of effectiveness' is not a scientific field. Would natural sciences work? Physics is too specific I assume.
 * I cheated by retitling the section "Modern scientific research" - does that work?


 * Another significant area of research on Inuit skin clothing has been its effectiveness, especially as contrasted with modern winter clothing made from synthetic materials. Despite significant -> twice the word significant. Can either be replaced by a synonym?
 * Swapped #2 for "extensive"

Accessibility
 * Provide alt for images (opt)
 * Done


 * Maybe use the lang template for the bit of Danish(?) to help screen readers (opt)
 * Done

Source
 * Spot checked four sentences, arguably one minor discrepancy:
 * is the most efficient system for preventing heat transfer from the face in the cold, windy environment of the Arctic. The source says: 'developed to date'. As you could theoretically have some sort of exhaustive algorithm (with infinite computing time) that checks all possible configurations of clothing, I think it'd better to specify.
 * Arguably, that's kind of implied in the statement that it's the most efficient. If something else was found to be better, the fur ruff would no longer be the most efficient.

Other:
 * No close paraphrasing in the sources I checked, earwig is happy
 * Stable, neutral and broad.