The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1830 abandonment of Chipewyan woman Matooskie(pictured) by her Scottish husband was eventually settled with a dowry payment of £200?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
First off, this looks like your first GA submission, so thank you for writing it and submitting it for review! Overall, I can't see anything that doesn't comply with WP:GACR, so these are all just suggestions for how to improve the article above and beyond that. RoySmith(talk) 19:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dictionary of Canadian Biography says "they had as many as seven children". Do you know why they equivocate with "as many"? Was there some uncertainty to how many children there were?
Matooskie later married Pierre Le Blanc was this another à la façon du pays, or a Catholic wedding?
@RoySmith: Thank you for taking on this review, I greatly appreciate this.
I have now added the infobox; please let me know if I have done this correctly
That was a very interesting read, thank you for linking this to me (I did create this page before I had Wikipedia Library access, so I probably should scour more material there). Wasn't best sure how to integrate this into the article so I've included it in the Legacy section - let me know if this reads well, or if my summary is correct.
I'm not sure why there is the equivocation there tbh, as no other source seems to doubt this. I can add in the quotes from them if it helps, but I can't seem to find any sources that say there were any more than secen children.
This was an wedding in a Catholic church from what I can see, I should have made that clearer. Thanks for pointing this out.
Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article! GnocchiFan (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and the Legacy section is a nice addition. This is good to go, thanks again for submitting it. RoySmith(talk) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment: I think this is a good enough hook - if anyone has a better one or has issues with this, please let me know. QPQ not needed as this is my second nom.
Overall: The link to John George McTavish strikes me as an easter egg link, so consider a slight adjustment. Other than that, I'd be happy to approve this. Grnrchst (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: That's fair enough, I'm very happy to go ahead with adjustments to the hook as suggested. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: I've made the edits now, as well as minor rewording which I think makes it clearer. Thoughts? – GnocchiFan (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This rather interesting historical figure recently passed GAN, and for the very engaging story the article tells, I'm unsure if it hits the GA criteria. I took a quick glance at the sources and added what additional information I could find from them, but with the current information I'm unsure if it meets suitable breadth or not, and wanted more feedback on this. The prose is also slightly confusing at times, especially in the legacy section. Generalissima (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Generalissima I did the GA review. I tried to hew strictly to the WP:GACR, which only require that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic", which I think this does. WP:FACR requires that the article be comprehensive, i.e. "neglects no major facts or details", but that's a higher standard. Anyway, I'm always happy to have somebody take another look, so I'm cool with the reassessment request. RoySmith(talk) 14:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback; I appreciate greater scrutiny of my work here. I've tried to tidy up the prose in the Legacy section, which I admit was a bit sloppy/confusing at times. – GnocchiFan (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also (re-)nominated this for copyediting at WP:GOCE if this helps. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima, I am inclined to agree with RoySmith; the GA criteria only requires that the main aspects of the topic are addressed, even while more can be said. A visit to GOCE will clear up any lingering issues in the prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
It was mentioned that her second husband Pierre Le Blanc died in a boat accident along with some of her children, but did 2 or 3 children die in that incident? And were those children from her first marriage or the second? 35.131.37.50 (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says her father "left for Lower Canada in 1801 without Matooskie, placing her and her sister under the care of another NWC fur trader". What about her mother? Did she go with her father? Stay with the daughters? Leave earlier? Minturn (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GnocchiFan (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The link to John George McTavish strikes me as an easter egg link, so consider a slight adjustment. Other than that, I'd be happy to approve this. Grnrchst (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)