Talk:Tatannuaq/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 22:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to take this one on; I know you've got a couple of reviews open, so there's no rush for responses. I'll get comments through over the weekend :D - also, how do you keep finding such interesting topics for articles???  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

OK @Generalissima: review done. Very much passable, just some small things to fix and something to consider to make the article more complete. Ping me if you want to discuss the source/have questions/have done the stuff, and I can close the review.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  21:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: See below

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Lead summarises the article well, the rest is all good!

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Nicely laid out according to MOS. Honestly, you might as well stick all of the single use citations as items in the Bibliography as well and sfn them since there's so few, but that's your stylistic choice.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   All statements in the article have an accompanying citation, so this seems fine to me.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig brought up some similar turns of phrase between the Canadian biographical dictionary article and this, but not enough to be an issue. I'll check for close paraphrasing etc. once I get round to spot checking.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Complete enough; see below.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Article is well focussed on Tatannuaq's life, and context is well integrated without being overwhelming.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   On the whole, it's neutral and fairly depicts the viewpoints of the various authors. However, the entry in the Canadian biographical dictionary contained a decent paragraph on the reactions to his death, which I feel really should be included - the quotes used in it would definitely be welcome in the Legacy section.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No comments here.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant and add value to the article. No problems with the captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Points

I've gone through with small copyedits, here are just some things I was unsure about. There's some not GACR stuff, but it never hurts. Generally, the prose is of a very high quality :D

• John Franklin was appointed to travel overland from the North American to explore the Arctic coastline, hoped to meet with a concurrent naval expedition: hoped->hoping?
• Can you add a English variant template at the top? Not sure if this is Canadian or American English
• Coppermine expedition, paragraph 3; can you reduce the reliance on the word "interpreter" here? Perhaps change one instance to "the two" or alike.
• Beardsley 2002 states that the word Tatannuaq literally translated to "The Belly" - this seems worth including
• also he's name is Inuktitut, can we get some IPA and respelling, if necessary?

Completeness

I was going to ask some questions about omissions in the article, such as what Tatannuaq's native language was, which seems quite important for an interpreter. But, I thought I should check myself, and I ended up finding Delisle, Jean (2019). "Tattannœuck, L'Inuit Serviable de John Franklin". Interprètres au Pays du Castor (in French). Presses de l'Université Laval. If you don't speak French, I can't fairly fault you for not using it - but it's got quite a few useful facts and additional background that I think would be really helpful; also importantly, it has some actual photos of the man. If you want to eventually bring this to FAC, I'm happy to help with integrating this after this review is over :)

Source review

The only blip I picked up on was

• The two interpreters arrived at Norway House on August 14; not found in the sources given - Houston merely states that they were at Norway House by August 14

I checked all the sources I could get access to, which was all of them except the McGoogan, so verifiability is a-ok. No copyright infringement detected.

• @Frzzl: Thank you so much for your very thorough review! I would absolutely love help incorporating Interprètres au Pays du Castor into the article later (this source has come up in searches for a number of figures I have or aim to write about, so it'd be great to start using it.) Made changes as per your review. Generalissima (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Lovely jubbly, I'll get to work adding that material in when I have a chance. You missed a comment about the neutrality (my fault for not sticking that with the others) - I think it just needs a sentence or two in the "Legacy" or the overarching Death section. I'll end the review once you've added it.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  22:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.