Good articleSisimiut has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 12, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Sisimiut (pictured) is the second-largest town in Greenland?

Sisimiut is the northermost spot in Greenland.

Akamalik lies here[edit]

The very big fishing ship Akamalik lies here, at least accordning to swedish tv. Should be mentioned, and Akamalik should also have a page of its own. See for example

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sisimiut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
I welcome specific suggestions. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Copy-edit would be appreciated. Algkalv (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks great. Couldn't see anything wrong at all.
If I can find the reference for this particular grave, I will include it. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't find the ref to the centimeter, so reworded the text. Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not forbidden to include references to offline content, in this case a museum exhibition. I have photographs of text for my own use, but that cannot be published. Not all museal information is online. That should never block article promotion, and a reviewer should assume good faith per policy. That said, I will look and see if I can find that information elsewhere. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say it was forbidden, but I am emphasizing that if other sources exist, they should take preference. FYI, if you take the article to FA, it will probably not be considered "high quality".
They are, yes, but including them all would require a separate article. That was not the aim. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think adding a summary in prose for the other demo profiles would be good. I'll expand on that. However, and this is very important for Greenland, the absolutely crucial statistic is the population growth, and its recent dynamics, hence the graph. One size doesn't fit all, and sections such as this should be custom-tailored for the region. While other parts of the world may be immune to small changes in population, in Greenland every person counts, as much as every inch of average sea level matters in the Maledives. I'll expand on other statistics, but I'll keep the focus on population growth.Algkalv (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Included what I could extract without spending months at a beancounter. A summary is perfectly sufficient. I consider this fixed. Algkalv (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the ethnical and religious break-down? Is this published or available? Again, it doesn't have to be a lot, just things like (I am just guessing) "70% of the population are Inuit, 25% are of Danish decent, while the rest... " and similar for religion. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't find statistical information on religion... Not sure if this kind of data is collected during censii. I agree that it would be a nice to have addition, but it may be hard to find, particularly for towns as such as opposed to the country as a whole. As for the ethnic background, this is complicated. Greenlanders are mostly a mix of the Inuit and the Danes, in all kinds of degrees. The data available is for the fraction born outside Greenland, and born inside Greenland, and I have included that in the article. — Algkalv (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree on all counts. The image is 16KB. Just because it is wide, does not mean its size is large. It's smaller than a vast majority thumbs on Wikipedia. The official data is collected since 1979, the establishment of the then-Home Rule. The purpose is not to give the accountof the last several centuries, but the recent dynamics, and it fullfils its purpose. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arguments accepted. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is why I width-restricted the left float. I'll look into this later. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All articles with such info have flags, and have lists. I don;t see why Sisimiut should be different. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The latest FA articles were using a different format, but I cannot find it now, so I'll ignore it for this review. But they should at least not be in bold.
Fixed formatting. I followed the format I found in other articles, and have no strong opinions on it one way or another... Should a guideline be formed for good/featured articles at some point in the future, this will be trivial to adjust, I think. — Algkalv (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The town was not a municipality. It was the administrative center of Sisimiut Municipality, which is not the same. The town right now has a 'town leader', and the English equivalent is 'mayor'. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Fair number" is too vague a comment. And not all information needs a reference, regardless of the article status. WP:When to cite. And furthermore, this is a good example of what does not need a reference. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added many references. I have by now read it several times through, and I consider all major and minor claims referenced. Adding more, such as the example you quoted, would be seriously overdoing it. Fixed. Algkalv (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to go now. Again, sorry for this delay, I'll have to look through the article once more to check the referencing, but it is looking a lot better now. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Some" is too vague a comment. Please list the sourcetypes that you think are incorrect. Algkalv (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed what guessed was wrong. It truly helps to have detailed feedback on errors or incompleteness. I consider this done, unless something specific is pointed out. Algkalv (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like they are all correctly formatted now. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arsenikk (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the late reply here, but I'm on vacation and Internet access for more than a few minutes at a time has become periodically scarce. Probably shouldn't have taken on the review with these restraints, but what is done is done. Arsenikk (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. We're not in a hurry ;) — Algkalv (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was two weeks ago. Can you specify when you will conclude this review? — Algkalv (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review #2 - Sandman888

Lead
Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds very awkward. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This should stay, as there are only two, and most people know only of Katuaq. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2010 belongs to the 2010s, and we're already in that decade. 'Next', 'recent', and so on are not good replacements for precise qualifiers. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. — Algkalv (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll review more later. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't intend to finish, please pass it back to the pool, so that someone else can review. — Algkalv (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enough of my time wasted here. Withdrawn. — Algkalv (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on editing[edit]

When you edit an article, particularly when you review it for GA, please pay attention to the current status of the article, and in the case of merge conflicts, do not force an edit of the version from way past, because as with this edit you actually removed content, complete with references. Mediawiki software normally informs the user of old version merge conflicts, and these require manual override, essentially a new edit, at least with normal privileges.

In case you decide to remove large chunks of content on purpose, please perform a separate edit for just that, or − preferably, since this is a GA-related edit − propose removal on the review page. Algkalv (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misleading population graph[edit]

The graph File:Sisimiut-population-dynamics.png is currently misleading, or more specifically violating recommendations in WP:GRAPH, in particular Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs. For instance, due to incorrect origin of y-axis, the graphics "fools" the reader by indicating that population sunk by 50% from 1993 to 1994, while according to the numbers the fluctuation was less than 1%. Oceanh (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it is misleading. The changes in population are small, and it is these small variations that are of interest, for all settlements in Greenland. A graph with the y-axis starting from 0 would be useless for all of them. I can add the y-axis label though. — Algkalv (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for response and for your arguments. As I am not an expert on demographics I can not take part in discussions on that subject. If this type of graph is a standard and widely accepted way to present population growth, then it is probably "ok", provided a cited reference to the adopted method or practice is given. If it is not, I would recommend to avoid introducton of new or nonstandard graphical presentations in violation of WP:GRAPH. Oceanh (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every single bar is supplied with a number. Had I included only the axis threshold label, then we might discuss issues. There is nothing wrong with this graph. Standard != axis at zero. — Algkalv (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merging short paragraphs[edit]

I don't know if you know but short paragraphs are frowned upon at GA and FA level. They disrupt the flow of the article. Paragraphs should be of reasonable length and comprehensive. It is not necessary to break everything down into tiny sections. Dr. Blofeld 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While some of the sections can be combined (Europeans with Colonial Era, and Municipal center section removed), it is wrong to dump the entire history text into one gargantuan section. These are very different eras, and artificial joining of the sections does not help in any way. Please provide a pointer to GA requirement that there should be no subsections. The current era subsections are long enough on their own. — Algkalv (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured articles like Washington, D.C. have "gargantuan" history sections, although its history is relatively much shorter. Yes my main concern was the one liner Europeans section. Merge that with the Colonial sera that would be better.. Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That example is not useful. This isn't even close to a featured article, and in all likelihood will never be, simply due to the subject matter. Again, there is nothing in GA guidelines to indicate this sort of mergning. Also, remember that there is a difference between an article about a village and an article about London. There is even a wikipedia essay about that. It's called scope. If you support the merges outlined above, let's do it. It will improve the article. — Algkalv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good articles like Chamba, Himachal Pradesh are hardly big cities. Dr. Blofeld 21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, please provide a hard guideline, because for any example, there is a counterexample. I explained above why merging long paragraphs for very different eras is harmful. — Algkalv (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just avoid one line paragraphs is all I'm saying. Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. — Algkalv (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a big improvement. I don't have a problem with sub sections provided they are relatively balanced and paragraphs rather than sentences. I would recommend either fleshing the sub sections to the Economy section out or merging them also. I just want to ensure that these articles pass and I think they can with minimal work.... I just require a little freedom to try to improve the article without being reverted 3o seconds after changing it that's all. Have faith in me is all I'm saying. Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The population figure needs a ref though... Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work with the economy section, article looks stronger already. The biggest weakness now is the short climate section. Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you combine the two celebrations photos into a right-aligned multiphoto as in this revision? (though then the vertical would need to go, as it would be a dupe) — Algkalv (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the lead should not have citations per wp:lead. The population section contains a ref. It would be better if the ref was moved to the infobox. — Algkalv (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, move the citation to pop in infobox. Yes aline the double photo, damn I forgot how to do a stack image one on top of the other... I've begun expanding the climate section. It needs doubling in length I think, perhaps more about seasonal winds etc. Also the last paragraph to geography needs more text. Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. More climate is good, if you can find references (I found them hard to find). Will do the lead and the image stack. Btw, please add edit summaries for your edits; it's a lot clearer then, and not just me, but anyone who looks at history. Particularly at that stage in the article age. — Algkalv (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. I'm off now but some recommendations. Housing should be merged into pop section which should be renamed Demographics. Education should be seperate from economy. Dr. Blofeld 22:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. — Algkalv (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Starting to look better now. I discovered http://www.clim-atic.org/documents/2010%20docs/Biogas%2520Production%2520from%2520the%2520waste%2520of%2520the%2520shrimp%2520manufacture.pdf. Could you use it to write a section on Environment/concerns? Dr. Blofeld 10:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not aware of any environmental concerns, so it's best that you add that section/subsection. Also, there is a number of mostly minor issues with the latest additions. I'll address them later. — Algkalv (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are not an easy man to please sir. Dr. Blofeld 10:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know what that's supposed to mean. The content you add is subject to the same scrutiny as mine, or anyone else's. — Algkalv (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It's looking better, is it not? Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely. — Algkalv (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That does mean a lot, I thought you were not happy with me editing it. Does Sisimiut have a local newspaper. I found a mention of a radio station http://www.sistus.gl/page.asp?content=program&lang=dk but I don't know if we can write enough for a media section. Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not, as nearly all, and all notable outlets and orgs are Nuuk-based. — Algkalv (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of my geo needs as a reader is to see where the town is located in relation to the capital of Nuuk. I was wondering if we could introduce File:Grenland CIA map PL.gif or something similar to the top right of the geo section and move the current photo down a bit to the left? You could modify a map of course just to show Sisimiut and Nuuk. I think it is needed though. What do you think? Yeah i saw somewhere the distance is "321 km" but then falling rain said 173 miles. What a shoddy site that is!!! Thanks for verifying the 320. Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposed map is not very good. A small location map that shows Nuuk near the southern extremity, and Sisimiut near the northern extremity can be crafted, but that requires substantial work to produce if this is to be a quality product − a matter of several days or longer. I'd say that's something to keep in a to-do list for later. It's not a ga requirement, but I agree it would be nice.

Fallingrain should be erased from the surface of this globe. — Algkalv (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah that map is crap I know, I was thinking actually more like your map with just Nuuk and Sisimiut marked, Hey did you know I actually put falling rain on the proposed black list but it still hasn't been erased. That was at least 9 months ago. Dr. Blofeld 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alignment[edit]

Per WP:Images#Forced_left_justification, the images should be on the right, unless there are expceptional circumstances, and a lot of text to support such special alignment. In the case of transport in this article, there isn't. — Algkalv (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not bothered either way, but four images in succession on the right looked odd. Oh, also there is inconsistency in fullstops in the image captions. It needs to be consistent one way or the other. Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, there are too many images in the transport section, which will be raised as an issue. Four is indeed too many. The airport has its own article, and the heliport photo can easily be removed from this article; I believe it should.

As to the dots, if the caption is a proper sentence, it should include a dot, otherwise, it shouldn't, from what I've read. I have not checked all captions. — Algkalv (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much better. Looks almost perfect now. I'd also get rid of the Taseralik photo. For some settings available in Wikipedia, it will overlap the section below. Would you agree with a removal? — Algkalv (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, remove it the overlap looked ugly, the preak I tried was even worse. . Up to you whether you want to remove the new photo I added of tourists I'm not too keen of it I wanted to see what it looked like. Dr. Blofeld 17:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My personal opinion is that it's low quality, and doesn't really add anything to the article... I think two images in that section are fine. I could upload a museum photo though. — Algkalv (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. OK just the sign will do. If you do have another photo of the musejm/local crafts or anyting that would be good. Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have photos of the sculptures (all kinds), but any upload would be a copyvio. I can only upload the building itself. — Algkalv (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a pity. Yeah let's see the building. If you have any photos of sealskin items/crafts this would be good this photo would be nice. Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't. I also think any more images would be overdoing it, again per wp:images. — Algkalv (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except for one image of the aerial. I think that is essential to go at the beginning of the geography. Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the first photo in that section gives a good overview of the town environment already. — Algkalv (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well it is poor quality, I agree, never mind. Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To sum up, I think the article has been much improved. Another pair of eyes than ours would be beneficial at this stage. — Algkalv (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost. Climate and Demographics need fleshing out a bit... I think the geo distance is very important in the intro as it immediately gives the reader an idea of where it is in relation to the largest town in Greenland. just saying it is on the Davis Strait isn't helpful enough in my view. It looks fine now I think. Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree on distance. I think demo and climate sections are good as they are, and more than sufficient for ga level. Expansion is always good though. One of the reqs for ga is article stability. We're there, I think, but what would be good now is a hunt for typos, colloquialisms, etc. Preferably from a so inclined editor who has not been involved. The famed another pair of eyes trained on the detail. — Algkalv (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there can be such a thing as "overediting". I did ask Nvvchar to see if he could scrape together some info on utlilities/culture which will be interesting to see. But I've finished working on this until the review now. I created Template:Sisimiut which needs filling. I started a restaurant but I'll move on to my other work now. Air Greenland looks good enough already to me, most of the "issues" in the past GA reviews were almost entirely aesthetic issues. Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're in agreement then. Thank you for your work on the article, regardless of ga nom as such. — Algkalv (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the thanks! I think between the two of us we know what we are doing and seem to agree on most of the changes that were made today which is promising, even if some of them intially seemed undesirable to each other. I await the GA review, its GA quality in my view. An FA on this town though would probably be virtually impossible unless somebody actually has some detailed books on the town. I want to take Nuuk to GA at some point but it needs a lot of work. Dr. Blofeld 18:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sisimiut/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. I have had a breif look and am very optimistic - it doesn't look like it has any major problems.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review[edit]

1.Well-written:

a.the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; Agree
b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Agree

2.Factually accurate and verifiable:

a. it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; Agree
b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged Agree
c.it contains no original research. Agree

3. Broad in its coverage:

a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic Agree
b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Agree

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Agree 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Agree 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images Agree

a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; Agree
b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Agree


Comment: I congratulate the editors who wrote this article - it is obviously the result of a very good team work. I can see no serious problems at all and the only thing I need to check before passing the article is the copyright status of the images. This looks very good.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've checked image copyright and didn't detect any problems. I'll pass the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou Maunus. I only hope Algkalv will return soon so we collaborate on some more articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs work[edit]

It is generally a very good article and the problems may have been introduced since the GA review above, but the colonial era section is very confusingly worded. It's not clear which settlement was the original Holsteinsborg or whether all of them were grouped under the term or whether they moved from one to the other, and in the current text there appear to be buildings constructed at the present site decades before it was settled. — LlywelynII 02:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to make the changes you deem appropriate then!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do and will for the ones I fully understand (e.g., I added more info on the origin of Holsteinsborg); still, there's plenty I don't know (e.g., the Moravians raised a church in Neu-Herrnhut in 1747, so if anything this is the oldest surviving church; but even that seems dubious: the Moravian Brethren Mission House is still around; so what is the legitimate title? Oldest Lutheran church? Oldest church still in use? No idea). I can still tell that someone should fix it if they know better. Hence, the talk page bit.
edit: Well, there's one mystery solved. Oldest surviving church proper. — LlywelynII 11:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sisimiut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you identify this picture?[edit]

Unidentified man, in either Sisimiut, Qeqertarsuaq, Kangersuatsiaq, or Upernavik, sometime between 8 June and 21 July 1854. Taken by Captain Edward Augustus Inglefield of the HMS 'Phoenix'. Higher-res version.

Can anyone identify this man or his location? HLHJ (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sisimiut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories