Talk:Eskimo (1933 film)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Clevelander96 (talk · contribs) 00:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC) I would vote for GA1 status for this article -- it's thorough, well-documented, and maintains a clear encyclopedic tone throughout. I know several people who have published books and articles about this film, and I've watched it myself many times; this entry is a very strong one. Clevelander96 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but GAR isn't a vote. If you think it's GA quality and haven't any criticism of it then you can copy the GA checklist and pass it. The lede doesn't need sourcing; the criticism is sourced in the article body anyway BTW..♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few things:

I did not see Eskimo Star in the list of sources. Was this source consulted? If not, why?
Speaking of "Eskimo": I understand that Wikipedia has appropriated "Inuit" as a PC-ish substitute for "Eskimo". However, keep in mind that there is a widely-used sense of the term which refers strictly to Canadians. Additionally, I've spent the better part of the past fifteen years in close company with indigenous folks from just about every place north and west of the Alaska Range. Trust me when I tell you that no one in Alaska uses "Inuit" except to refer to Canadians. Just like the only igloos we have tend to be constructed of plywood and foam insulation rather than snow and ice.

Depends on whether or not the sources state Inuit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I saw a reference to "stone" as a measure of weight. Shouldn't American English prevail here? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the source stated the measurement a given way. I can use the converter template, not a problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is reviewing this Radio?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have plenty enough to deal with at the moment, both on here and in real life. Therefore, this is not a review, I'm merely asking questions. To me, a GA is about quality encyclopedic content, not filling your user page with "wiki-bling". Unfortunately, too many reviewers appear focused solely on passing the GA; I've seen far too many GAs which fall below B-Class criteria specifically due to this practice. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think I'm one of the those who couldn't care less about quality encyclopedic content and am only looking to fill my user page with "wiki bling". Rather insulting don't you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question that this article meets the GA criteria, so I am going to approve it. I do have a few suggestions for further improvement, though:

I have added both Anna Fienup-Riordan's Freeze Frame and Lael Morgan's Eskimo Star to the bibliography. These two books have, by far, the most detailed and authoritative description and analysis of the film, and should be looked at in the process of continuing to improve this article.
The relatively few critical appraisals of this film cited in the article are both highly critical of it -- but I don't think that's a truly accurate reflection of what scholars of Inupiat culture, Alaskan history, or film history have had to say about it. There are positive as well as negative views among such scholars, and the positive ones should also be included WP:NPOV

Other than the above, I think this is a strong and comprehensive entry that meets all six of the GA criteria.Clevelander96 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]