Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatannuaq/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2024 [1].

Tatannuaq[edit]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatannuaq (or Tattannoeuck, or Augustus in older sources) was an Inuit hunter and interpreter for the Hudson's Bay Company, notable serving in two of Sir John Franklin's ill-fated Arctic expeditions. Tatannuaq was one of nine survivors out of the twenty who began the Coppermine expedition, and saved the Mackenzie River expedition party from Inuit attacks.

This was a fun article to write; I've worked a lot on the coverage of Inuit interpreters, as they have increasingly been coming into the forefront on the scholarship of arctic exploration. Generalissima (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: It's been a few days since there's been activity on here; is this good to promote? Generalissima (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Tattannoeuck.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Coppermine_mouth_1821.jpg, File:The_Esqimaux_Pillaging_the_Boats_(BM_1932,0727.107)_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ope, good catches on both accounts, thank you. Fixed. Generalissima (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Recusing to review.
  • Link inuit?
    • Good idea. - G
  • "Following significant delays" doesn't really work in the lead. I think you need to either cut it or explain it a little more. Similarly in the main article.
    • Expanded on it a bit more in both sections. - G
  • "After several years of tending the HBC post at Fort Chimo". I m not sure what "tending" means here, and I am unsure that it corresponds to what is said in the main article. Perhaps recast?
    • Good idea. Rephrased. - G
  • "he himself". Do we really need "himself" here? I mean, who else would he be?
    • Oof yeah that's sloppy phrasing. - G
  • "as far north as Marble Island, near Rankin Inlet." Would it make sense to add a distance to the end, even if approximate?
    • Rankin Inlet is also a body of water the island is adjacent to, so I'm unsure how to phrase it in a satisfactory way. - G
Cough! Rankin Inlet is a village. It is almost exactly 300 miles north of Churchill, so approximately 100 north of where the young Tatannuaq lived.
  • Ohhh relative to where he lived, rather than to Marble Island. I misunderstood. I clarified this now. - G
  • "he took a wife". A slightly archaic and mildly sexist phrase. Perhaps 'married a woman'?
    • Good idea. - G
  • "to travel overland from the North American to explore". Is there a word missing after "American"?
    • Ope, yes there is. - G
  • "a concurrent naval expedition by William Edward Parry" Which was doing what where?
    • Added some clarification. - G
  • No publisher location for McGoogan?
    • Ooh, good catch. Fixed. - G
  • "they joined a large party proceeding to Fort Chipewyan." This suggests that the party was already "proceeding", which the following sentence states they weren't.
    • Ah yeah, "departing towards" is probably better here. - G
  • Link Hudson Bay Company?
    • I already do in the first section; would that be overlinking? - G
My mistake. But you confused my search by having "Hudson Bay Company" the second time. (No 's.)
  • Ope, yeah. Fixed that now. - G
  • "was the first to descend the Coppermine River". Is there a 'European' missing from in there?
    • The sources don't qualify it but like, yeah, you're right lol. - G
Shame on the sources then. :-)
  • "HBC-NWC". The MoS: "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses".
    • Oh good point. - G
  • "Tatannuaq unsuccessfully searched for Hoeootoerock, who went missing following a hunting trip." This would be easier to read if it were recast in chronological order.
    • Yep, that's a good point. - G
  • "Tatannuaq departed from the fort in October 1821". Again this seems to be out of chronological order within the paragraph.
    • Oh I have no idea how I left that in there! - G
  • "shot at the Inuit, forcing them to retreat". Forcing them to retreat, or 'causing' them to retreat.
    • Causing is probally more encyclopedic here. - G
  • " The Inuit reportedly expressed remorse ... with Tatannuaq reportedly weeping". Synonym time? To avoid "reportedly in consecutive sentences.
    • Rephrased the first to "said to have" since it's Tatannuaq himself reporting this. - G
  • "From 1827 to 1830 he was stationed at Churchill". "stationed" makes it sound like he was a ship or a military unit. Perhaps 'lived' or 'worked'? Or both.
    • Good point. - G

That's all from me. Neat work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your review! I started making the changes as you were reviewing, so it should be all good on those fronts now. Generalissima (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

  • Looks interesting and unusual compared with what we usually get here, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance there's a bunch of WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
    • Oh thank you so much for the script recommendation! Removed duplinks. - G
  • "Expedition camp at the mouth of the Coppermine, 1821" Spell out and link the name of the river? I was puzzled when I glanced at the caption.
    • Done. - G
  • "Engraving of John Franklin" Link his name and provide context for his relevance in caption?
    • Done. - G
  • Give date and artist for the infobox image?
    • Done. - G
  • "Engraving of the expedition being attacked by Inuit after a sketch by George Back, 1828" Link Inuit and Back in the caption?
    • Done. - G
  • Link Inuit and any other terms that are not only linked in the intro at first mention in the article body as well (and vice versa, if any exist).
    • - Oops, yeah. Done. - G
  • "about two hundred miles" Give conversion?
    • Done. - G
  • Link Rupert's Land in infobox?
    • Done. - G
  • "a hundred miles to the north" Conversion?
    • Done. - G
  • Do we have more specific info on what ethnic group or tribe he belonged to? As far as I understand, Inuit is a pretty wide umbrella-term?
    • Sadly this is not explicitly spelled out in any of the sources. Geographically, he almost certainly would have been a member of a Kivallirmiut band (the Paallirmiut specifically lines up almost perfectly with the distance from Churchill given), but that'd be OR; no biography has specified his band affiliation :( - G Generalissima (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but nice to know! FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to Fort Churchill in 1822" Do we know which month?
    • Source doesn't say, alas. - G
  • "charted 675 miles" Convert?
    • Good idea, done. - G
  • "From 1827 to 1830 he worked at Churchil" Probably good to use his name at the start of a new section.
    • Done. - G
  • "around 20 miles" Convert?
    • Done. - G
  • "Finlayson described him less favorably, describing him" The "described/describing" in the same sentence is a bit clunky, any way to make it less repetitive?
    • Threw in the spicier "eulogized" here. - G
  • Fort Resolution is still linked three times in the article body, twice in the same paragraph.
    • Ope, my bad. - G
  • "Originally from an Inuit band two hundred miles north of" Conversion in intro?
    • Done. - G
  • Give year for the two expeditions mentioned in the intro?
    • Done. - G
  • "he departed again to the interior in an attempt to assist in locating John Ross's expedition, but perished in bad weather a short distance outside Fort Resolution." Give year.
  • Support - this looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Leaving the post briefly in 1814, he returned to work for the winter of 1815, then returning" => "Leaving the post briefly in 1814, he returned to work for the winter of 1815, then returned"
  • "the Dene's great interest and admiration, who were fascinated" => "the great interest and admiration of the Dene, who were fascinated"
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Good suggestions; implemented! Thank you very much. :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from PMC[edit]

Coming soon to a FAC near you ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpick side
  • Several instances of refs out of order (VE will fuck you on this while using sfns unfortunately, because it counts refs as one thing and sfns as another thing - you'll need to open a copy of the page in view mode and make the fixes in the other tab)
    • for example "Augustus" and "Junius".[11][9][12]
    • Ope, I admit I didn't even know that was a style guideline to begin with! Fixed. - G
      • I perennially annoy FAC reviewers by not doing this properly, lol
  • Harper source needs page numbers if possible, and why is that book in the citations section and not in the bibliography?
    • I'm using an ebook copy which doesn't have page numbers :( Not sure what to do there. The chapter is like, 4 pages though. - G
      • Hm, actually, my local library system seems to have a copy. I'll pick it up and throw the page numbers in and put it in the bibliography once it comes in.
        • This is now done, for anyone looking ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for Harper, you've omitted the quote that makes up half the chapter title
    • Ah yeah, fixed. - G
  • Where possible, you should link authors who have articles using the author-link parameter (ie Kenn Harper, Ken McGoogan, C. Stuart Houston)
    • Totally forgot about authorlinks! Thank you, fixed. - G
  • Should list the publisher for the Canadian Encyclopedia, Dictionary of Canadian Biography, and Open Science and Data Platform
    • Done! - G
  • If the bibliography has an organizing principle, I do not see it, I beg you to obtain one
    • Organized it by date. - G
  • If I don't pick on this, Gog will - titles of major works like books should be in Title Case, while titles of minor works like journal articles should be in Sentence case. Please adjust accordingly
    • Okay! - G
  • Is Stuart Houston (1994) the same guy as C. Stuart Houston (1974 and 1984)? If yes, make consistent. If no, can you distinguish them better?
    • Same guy, yeah. Clarified.
  • Houston should be listed as the editor rather than the author for "To the Arctic", as that's what's given in the book's front papers. Not sure where the original date of 1821 is coming from - was the book published in this form at that time? If so, please clarify, per the documentation for {{Cite book}}, which says "For clarity, please supply specifics." If not, I would just remove it.
    • I don't think it was ever published, so I'll just say 1974. - G
  • Please link all publishers for which there is a bluelink, or none of them. Right now you've got a couple at random.
    • Got it. - G
Spotcheck side
  • All sources appear reliable, nothing in need of challenging
  • It seems like sometimes you're a little loose with precise placement of sources. It's not that I'm finding great gobs of stuff that aren't supported by some source, but in some cases you've cited the wrong source by mistake, or you've placed the ref after X sentences it does support and Y that it does not, creating the inaccurate impression that it also supports Y. I'm also somewhat prone to slightly absent-minded sourcing, so I'm not hassling you too badly, but it's something to watch yourself for.
  • Ref 1 good
  • 2a is used to support Tatannuaq having a brother, but that info is found in ref 6
    • Fixed. - G
  • 2b, 2c, 2e, 2f, 2g good
  • Ref 6a, 6d, 6f good
  • 6b doesn't match the text. Our article says the interpreters were sent ahead because of "Concerns of Inuit attacks on the explorers", but the source says "Rightly worried that the Inuit would be nervous on seeing Europeans and Indians again" and then describes a bunch of Inuit taking off. Ie, they didn't think the Inuit would attack, they thought the Inuit thought they were going to attack
    • Ah good catch! Added context about the Bloody Falls massacre and reworded. - G
  • 6c supports up to "...weakened from hunger" but not the next two sentences. I would move it so it's more clear what it supports.
    • Fixed. - G
  • 6e is used to say that he walked to Cumberland House with Ooglibuck, but Cumberland House isn't mentioned
  • Fixed. - G
  • Ref 7b doesn't support the number of survivors. I think you meant to cite ref 8, which does
    • Fixed. Dearest apologies for making so much work for you. - G
      • All good, like I said, I'm prone to it to, so I won't give you too much of a hard time. (You should see how much work I've made for myself mixing up Thomas and Wilson in my McQueen ones, because both books came out in 2015 and often discuss the same period within roughly the same page numbers). All looking good now.
Other miscellaneous thoughts
  • "Tatannuaq unsuccessfully searched for him. Hoeootoerock was never found." Feels kinda redundant to say the search was unsuccessful and then to reiterate that he was never found, but I'm open to changing my mind.
    • Just chiming in to say that I did suggest a change along these lines (and the article didn't previously include the second sentence), since just because Tatannuaq's search was unsuccessful doesn't necessarily mean that Hoeootoerock didn't eventually turn up. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone asked for explicit conformation he was never found, but I reworded it a bit more concisely. - G
      • Works for me
  • "He returned to Fort Churchill in 1822, one of nine survivors of the twenty who began the expedition." - This sentence ambiguously implies that he returned at this time in the company of the other survivors. (Or that his return in 1822 had to do with Franklin's expedition, which it didn't). I would disconnect these two things - close the paragraph with him being 1 of 9 survivors, then move his return to Churchill into the next paragraph.
    • Good idea! Fixed. -G
  • "Later life and death" is one paragraph, but I feel like it could be split, maybe at "In 1833, he learned..."
    • Also a good idea. - G
  • "He arrived at the post" - it feels odd to cover him working from 1830-1833 in one sentence, then backtrack and announce btw he arrived here in September.
    • Ooh yeah, flows better now. - G
  • "In 1833, he learned that George Back was mounting an expedition to search for John Ross's second Arctic expedition, presumed lost, and hurried to join the expedition." Two is undesirable but maybe justifiable, but three is for sure avoidable
    • Reworded. Thank you for noticing that. - G
  • Why does Tatannuaq arrive at York Factor before he departs?
    • He took a ship of some sort to York Factory, and then went to Churchill from there. Reworded for clarity. - G
  • Feel free to ignore this but I uploaded a tighter crop of the butterfly that shows it off a little better, if you want - File:Brown Elfin (Callophrys augustinus) (8847670385) (cropped).jpg
    • Oh what a nice crop, thank you!
      • I like playing with the crop tool on Commons :P

That's all I have for now. I'll take another pass once you've double-checked the source placement and replied otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Alrighty! Had the chance to look through the sources to double check placement and corrected everything you've found. Generalissima (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm satisfied enough to pass the source review, and I support based on prose also. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Elli[edit]

  • Is there any better estimate of where they were born? A map would be nice if possible.
    • Sadly this is kept very vague in all the sources. - G
  • "Although his tribe would frequently trade with other Inuit groups further north, Tatannuaq had only been as far as Marble Island, around a 100 miles (160 km) to the north, in the vicinity of Rankin Inlet." this sentence is a bit confusing. 100 miles north of where? "Had only been as far as Marble Island" as of when? I can figure it out from context but saying things a bit more explicitly would be better.
    • Clarified this. - G

Regarding the Coppermine expedition:

  • Is Hoeootoerock potentially notable? Also, was he never found?
    • Unsure, he might fall under WP:1E. And no, he was never found. Let me clarify that. - G
  • When did the return trip take place?
    • Clarified. - G
  • You mention "Fort Churchill" once but otherwise just mention "Churchill" -- are these the same? I'd assume they're nearby at least?"
    • In this period, they're the same. - G
  • "Tatannuaq met Anglican missionary John West at Churchill in August 1822; he served as West's interpreter in 1822 and 1823 during his visits to Churchill and York Factory." -- you mention visits to York Factory in 1820, and a potential one in 1833, but not one in 1823.
    • Ah, I meant West's visits; but I clarified this. -G

Regarding the Mackenzie River expedition:

  • "Descending down the Great Bear and Mackenzie in the summer of 1826" they descended down the lake? Not sure what this means.
    • Great Bear River, I clarified this. - G

Regarding Later life and death:

  • "From 1827 to 1830 Tatannuaq worked at Churchill" was this still at the HBC?
    • Yep. Clarified. - G
  • "In 1833, he learned that George Back was mounting an expedition to search for John Ross's second Arctic expedition, presumed lost. He possibly arrived at York Factory in September 1833. He departed from Churchill, where, despite an injured leg, he traveled the 1,200 miles (1,900 km) on foot through the winter weather to Fort Resolution, possibly accompanying the post's messenger." can you expand on this more? Was he sent on this as part of his job, or did he volunteer for it?
    • Seems to have volunteered. Clarified a bit, as much as the source allows. - G
  • Did Back succeed in finding Ross's expedition?
    • Ooh, I should have included that. Added a little addendum there. - G
  • When was his body found?
    • Doesn't say, alas. - G

That's all for my comments -- pretty good article. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Elli: Thank you very much for your feedback! Made edits as suggested. Generalissima (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good! Support this (as a prose review; didn't check the sources and will leave that to others). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC Oppose[edit]

  • Marker for now. Will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mackenzie River incident is told a different way here. I think the alternative version also needs to be covered in the article, even if it is just as a footnote (otherwise it fails the "comprehensive" part of the criteria). - SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Hmm. I'm not sure if this source is reliable; since it makes a number of errors (John West was Anglican, not Moravian; Keewatin didn't exist until the 1870s; Every other source agrees that Tatannuaq unsuccessfully pleaded for the Inuit to stop, but then he later performed diplomacy to prevent future attacks. Since that source is a tertiary source, and it has so much incorrect information in regards to Tatannuaq, I don't really feel comfortable considering it one of the best sources in regard to him. Generalissima (talk) Generalissima
It may be worth including it as a footnote and rebutting it with the weight of other sources. If someone reads that other source and comes here to find more information, they will likely have the impression we are wrong. Correcting it by using the sources would be a beneficial step. (ps. no need to ping me: I have this watchlisted) - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Ah my apologies on the ping.) I just really feel that is unnecessary: WP:WSAW is one of my guiding essays when it comes to situations like this, and I think it's very undue weight to include a version of the narrative from a secondary source which is citing existing scholarship, when all other sources which it cites unanimously agree with another version of the events. Generalissima (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WSAW is a new essay (less than a year) written almost entirely by one person that who has no experience in FAs (and limited experience in GAs); that's a lightweight opinion to be holding up at FAC. I won't push the point on this, but I do suggest that you have the ability to clarify for readers something that has been incorrectly published in at least two books (albeit both written by the same person). You may also want to look at Approach 3 at WSAW.
I'll do the review proper shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was going to let this be your call, but I'm going to return to it now, having found a third and fourth source that states no shots were fired. The first is the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, which you rely on at several points in the article; the second is Sir John Franklin's journals and correspondence : the second Arctic land expedition, 1825-1827 (this is the version taken from Franklin's own notes). The previous sources should have been enough to have had this information as a footnote, but these two put an entirely different spin on it - given these are close to the primary sources saying no shots were fired, this needs to be corrected and both versions need to be addressed in the text.
  • Some form of map may be useful here - I doubt most readers will know the location of most of the places mentioned
  • There is another picture of Tatannuaq here, published in 1823, so free of any copyright concerns
    • Oh rad, thank you. - G
  • The above book is Franklin's Narrative of a journey to the shores of the polar sea, in the years 1819, 20, 21, and 22, which I'm surprised hasn't been used, given the number of references he makes to "Augustus". - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "and with her had three sons" is a little cumbersome. Why not just "and the couple had three sons".
    • Much better phrasing. - G
Coppermine expedition
  • "Tatannuaq and Hoeootoerock to advance ahead of the party and attempt to make contact with local tribes." Odd change in tense here. Why not they “advanced ahead of the party and attempted”?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "two week journey": -> “two-week journey”
    • Fixed. - G

Done to the end of Coppermine. More to come - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm had to move to oppose on this, partly around the point of the disputed source, but with another aspect too.
I have finally managed to get hold of the source that you use to support the statement "George Back was able to recover his firearms and shot at the Inuit, causing them to retreat". The source actually states that "Finally Back got his boat afloat again and his crew levelled their guns at the Inuit, who immediately retreated." It doesn't support the claim that Back recovered any firearms or that he shot at the Inuit. This is concerning.
I'm also concerned that some other sources - notably the records by Franklin - are not used at all. This does not chime with 1.c of the FA criteria as being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather premature to oppose considering I'm still working on resolving the issues you raised, but I hope that I can resolve things to a level where you would be comfortable supporting. I'll try to make the changes later today. Generalissima (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes deeper than trying to do some changes in the course of a day. A search of IA on the name "Tattannoeuck" or using the terms ("Franklin" "Augustus") shows a large number of other sources. Yes, many of these are only a passing reference, but some of them go into more detail on the man and his actions. It's a short article on a subject where the amount of information is scarce, but there is information I have found in about an hour's searching that should be included, but isn't. Some of it is in the sources you've already used.
I think this article would have benefited from some deeper research from a wider range of sources and a period in PR. As it stands this isn't at FAC level yet. Can I suggest you withdraw and take your time in building it up from every available source you can, before popping it into PR and then returning with a strengthened piece? - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not withdraw the article, I believe that it is in ready position for FA with some minor modifications needed. It passed a great deal of prior prose and source reviews without issue. Generalissima (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your call, but it fails FA criteria 1.c. This is not a minor point. The reviews you've had do not cover this at all (the previous source review was on the formatting on the extant sources; my review is showing you have not conducted "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which isn't something you can fix in an afternoon).
@FAC coordinators: I think this could probably benefit from a spot check on the sources, given the issue above. Your call on that, but I think it best it's not done by me, just to keep everything above board. - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your in-depth review here, but I really feel that I can resolve it to a level that you would feel comfortable passing. Would you be willing to give me the weekend to work on it before asking me to withdraw? Generalissima (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the FAC coords would probably be okay with it - it's down to them, but they do like to play fair to nominators to sort things out.
I suggest you run the searches I outlined in the Internet Archive, which will show you the possible sources (50 works for "Tattannoeuck", for example, but Franklin and others will have called him Augustus, so make sure you include searches under that name - "Franklin" and "Augustus", "Back" and "Augustus", etc), many of which can be discounted as duplicates, but there are still useful areas to explore. You have, for example, no quotes from anyone who worked with him. Franklin's Thirty years in the Arctic regions contains one appraisal that "the circumstance of his having found his way through a part of the country he had never been in before, must be considered a remarkable proof of sagacity", really should be included to bring the man to life. You don't mention that he converted to Christianity while working with West (and what was he before, if anything). A quote from Back on his opinion would be good, etc. At the moment, it seems like it's an article that just goes through the motions, rather than making a reader interested, enlightening them making us care about the individual. Some of this is in the sources I've outlined, others, I'm sure, are in the ones you've already used. I hope this helps. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just to be clear, my spotcheck was not just formatting. I had a nitpick section for formatting and a separate section right underneath with actual spot checking of the text against the sources, and did identify issues that were rapidly addressed. I regret to say I did miss the levelling guns vs firing shots issue in Harper, which is entirely my own oversight. I did not do my own separate research to find unused sources, but I don't typically see that done for source checks, so I don't see that as being a deficient source check. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, my bad: laziness on my part made me just assume it was a format check, rather than a spot check too. I don't think you did a deficient check - by their very nature, a spot check will not check all the refs, and 17 just happened to be one of those you didn't check. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been dealing with an immense amount of stress lately but I will try to my best to return to this article as soon as possible and get it up to your liking. I would like to reiterate that I am confident that I can fully resolve any 1.c issues within the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima, I'm truly sorry to hear that. I'm happy to wait a few days for you to go through the sources I've highlighted above - I'm sure the FAC co-ords will allow a bit of leeway on the timing (Big hint to the co-ords: please let this ride for a while as Generalissima goes through the sources). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Arbitrary break so this doesn't get too hard to read)
Sorry about the delay; bogged down with personal life as well as large amounts of work. I have begun incorporating text from Jean Delisle's Interprètes au Pays du Castor (2019), which seems to incorporate much of the primary sourcing that I had missed. I may bring in more of the primary diaries, but I really would like to avoid relying on such old primary sourcing for something like this. As you explained, I'll try to add some more information to clarify the range of differing interpretations of the boat incident after I'm doing getting through the Delisle source. Thank you very much for your patience. Generalissima (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fleshed out the Coppermine section, will work on Mackenzie River tomorrow! Hope this has at least partially resolved your issues so far, Schrocat. Generalissima (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Sandbh[edit]

The first six paragraphs of this article don’t meet criterion 1a, well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.

The first paragraph refers to John Franklin's Arctic expeditions without any context as to the signicance of John Franklin or the purpose of the expeditions. The subject is from 200 miles (320 km) north of Churchill, Manitoba. So, where the hell is Manitoba?

In the second paragraph the first sentence is too long, at 44 words. The second paragraph refers to a “significant delay”. Eh? So what? Mention is then made of two expeditions namely the 1819–1822 Coppermine expedition and the 1825–1827 Mackenzie River expedition. What is Coppermine? What is the significance of Mackenzie River? Where are these places?

In paragraph 3 we learn that Tatannuaq was born to an Inuit family in the 1790s, about 200 miles (320 km) north of Churchill, Manitoba, in what is now the Kivalliq Region of Nunavut, then part of the loosely administered Rupert's Land territory. Where are all these places? Where is a map?

In paragraph 4 we learn that in 1812, he was hired to work at the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) trading post at Churchill. Hired to work as what? What is the significance of the HBC?

Paragraph 5 refers to an abortive 1818 expedition to Svalbard. Where is that? What was the purpose of the mission? Why was it aborted? Mention is made of hoping to meet with a concurrent naval expedition by William Edward Parry intending to traverse Lancaster Sound. Where is Lancaster sound? Who is Parry? What was the purpose of the concurrent expedition?

Paragraph 6 says, Franklin attempted to hire one or two Inuit interpreters for the expedition, but encountered difficulties and delays due to a lack of suitable candidates at Churchill or Cumberland House. Why not hire the subject of the article? Where was he at that time? What is Cumberland House and its significance? Reference is made to a clerk at York Factory. Where is that? What is the function of York Factory? What is the next-mentioned Fort Enterprise? Continuing the theme of mystery locations and entities, what is the North West Company (NWC) post of Fort Providence? Is Akaitcho, chief of the Yellowknives, an Inuit. Why him?

At this point I lost interest in the article, due to its non-engaging style. — Sandbh (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tatannuaq/archive1&oldid=1212269189"