Good articleResearch on Inuit clothing has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starResearch on Inuit clothing is part of the Inuit clothing series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2021Good article nomineeListed
September 1, 2021Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 30, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that research on Inuit clothing began with detailed images of Inuit people produced by Europeans as early as the 1560s?
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Research on Inuit clothing/GA1. 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)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): No issues.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Mostly fine, but see below.

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Image notes:

The images themselves are good, but I might want to recommend moving some around. The lead has no images, while two of those currently in the article chop up sections a little. Right now, I'm inclined to suggest moving File:Inuk Woman (6819810943).jpg to the lead, as it's a nice, eye-catching image that's currently a bit awkwardly placed halfway through a section break. Vaticidalprophet 09:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved that one up and installed a copy of File:Qilakitsoq woman's parka sealskin 1978.jpg in the archaeology section to make it not look so barren. ♠PMC(talk) 19:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


Hiya :). I'll be giving a second opinion / finish the review. (opt) means I don't consider it part of the GA criteria. Article looks good! FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femkemilene, thanks for jumping in on this one. I've made alterations below or explained my rationale otherwise. ♠PMC(talk) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. I'm happy. Vaticidalprophet, if you're happy too, could you pass the article? FemkeMilene (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the honours. Thanks for picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 10:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

  • Done
  • I cheated by retitling the section "Modern scientific research" - does that work?
  • Swapped #2 for "extensive"

Accessibility

  • Done
  • Done

Source

  • 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:

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk10:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by Premeditated Chaos (talk). Self-nominated at 16:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article was nominated within 7 days of passing GA. Article is well-written and cited with reliable sources. QPQ has been completed. No pings on Earwigs for copyvio or close paraphrasing. Hook is interesting, cited, and short enough for DYK. Morgan695 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]