Talk:Assassin's mace/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: SpaceEconomist192 (talk · contribs) 17:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(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);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

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

Notes	Result
The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	The reviewer has left no comments here	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Great work. It was a pleasure working with you and learning about assassin's mace. See ya.

Discussion

@SpaceEconomist192: I've incorporated your suggestions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 09:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SpaceEconomist192: I've responded to all your new action items. Thank you for all the help. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 13:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chess: No problem, it's a teamwork! I've added more suggestions. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

@Chess: The article is overall good, interesting and complies with most of the GA criteria. The main problem that the article suffers are weasel words, take for instance American analysts agree that... or American analysts consider.... All these need to be gone in order to be in conformity with the Manual of Style and original research. I've tagged all words that seem to be weasel. It's worth noting that these words can occasionally be used but only if it reflects the opinion of the source.

In the lead it's said that the term, assassin's mace, was also a club which was used to break an enemy's blade in combat, but besides this sentence, However, the term can also be translated as 'killing mace', as the word shoujian refers to a small hand mace used in ancient China to kill heavily armoured enemies., the ancient usage of the term isn't explored in the article. If reliable sources are available, it would be good to cover this aspect. SpaceEconomist192 ✐

Acknowledging the weasel word stuff is bad, I will fix it at some point. In response to the history of the term, I'm not an expert on ancient Chinese military history and I would have to be very knowledgeable in classical Chinese to explore it more without Google Translate (which butchers it). I can't substantiate much about the history myself in English-language sources, but a lot of the results are polluted by the more well known jian or the broader "shashoujian". My library subscription doesn't turn up much on "手锏" either, but I don't think it has many Chinese-language sources. So there's not a whole lot I can do on that front. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 01:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you want I can help you fix the weasel words. Regarding the ancient use of the term, it's okay if you don't have access to the sources but in that case then I think it's better to fix at least the introductory sentence, An assassin's mace is a legendary ancient Chinese weapon, it set ups the reader into thinking that this is going to be explored in the article, when it's just talked in the lead. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 08:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SpaceEconomist192: removed the weasel words and added the grand strategy content. I'm not sure how to alter the lede at the moment. Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 18:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SpaceEconomist192: Do you have any suggestions for alternate wording? Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 23:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chess: An assassin's mace is/was a legendary ancient Chinese weapon and nowadays is a term used describe new weapons systems. Something like this would work, but write it however you want. Just make sure to include the two usages of assassin's mace in the first phrase. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 17:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@SpaceEconomist192: What do you think? [1] Chess (talk) (please

mention me on reply) 20:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Chess: I removed the aimed at countering the United States since it is already developed a few phrases down in the lead. Passing the article. SpaceEconomist192 ✐ 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lead

In "Shashou Jian" was a club... a wikilink to club (weapon) would be nice.
Done. I've wikilinked it, though more specifically it's a Jian (sword breaker) or "shoujian", a hand mace that could go through armour. The name is a pun and I've edited to reflect that, as it can mean two things.
Per MOS:LEADLANG, using a translation such as "Shashou Jian" in the lead section is to be avoided. I suggest you to switch it in the above sentence for «assassin's mace».
Done. I've gone ahead and refactored it.
...instead of fighting him according to the rules.. What rules are those? A clarification is needed.
Done. I've removed that emphasis on the story since it doesn't help the reader understand the article (and the sources on the story story are kind of vague), and replaced it with an explanation of what "shoujian" and "Jian" were, more or less.
Citations in the lead section are to be avoided, per MOS:LEADCITE.
Done. Removed it.
A wikilink for eponymous would be helpful.
Done
Per MOS:JARGON, technical terms such as "asymmetric warfare" and "anti-access/area denial" should be understandable for the average reader. I recommend you to give a brief explanation of what those terms mean, something like this: ...demonstrates a war between belligerents whose military power is asymmetrical and...
Done. I didn't use your exact wording but I added clarification. Would an explanatory footnote also work?
Sure, let's try it. Though the terms are kind of straightforward, so if the explanatory footnote look too awkward or breaks the flow might as well just leave as it was originally.
...United States, though whether.... A "though" here seems redundant, no? I think separating the two statements in two different sentences would be better.
Done. I did so and also clarified "defined" as being "government-defined".

Etymology and origin

Regarding the title, isn't etymology already the origin? I think the section should be named just "Etymology".
Done
Per MOS:WAW, when writing about words, using italics instead of quotations marks is preferred. So terms like shashoujian, shoujian, shashou, etc, should be instead in italics.
Done. Let me know if I missed any. Italicized assassin's mace as well when it's been described as a term.
Seems good to me!
Per MOS:SINGLE, glosses that translate unfamiliar terms should take single quotes. In that case in ...that literally mean "kill", "hand", and "mace", and..., should be instead, 'kill', 'hand' and 'mace'. Also, "literally" seems redundant here.
Partly done. This is a tricky one, because the characters mean kill, hand, and mace, when taken on their own, but Chinese characters can be combined to form compound words. I use the word "literally" in the sense of a literal translation and then contrast other possible translations. Is there a better way to clarify literally in the translate sense (wiki link?) or should I pick a different word? I don't think it's redundant. I've used the single quotes.
Oh, I see. Yeah, I think a wikilink would do the work.
Done. Also clarified a little.

Modern usage

From my reading, neither sources support that ...many American military analysts interpret... Looks like a MOS:WEASEL word, no? Also, the second part of the sentence (...and many Americans....developed by China.) isn't practically saying the same as the first part (The term is...weapons system...)?
  Partly done I tried to remove the weasel wording. The second part of the sentence is meant to convey that it's disputed whether or not "assassin's mace" is used in China as a defined technical term for specific kinds of military weapons systems that could fit into an overall strategy, or if it's just an idiomatic flourish that people enjoy using. How might I rewrite the sentence to make this clear? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I was referring to this two parts: The term is frequently used in Chinese military contexts to describe new weapons systems... (first part) ...American military analysts such as Jason Bruzdzinski or Michael Pillsbury interpret this as referring to a new class or type of weapon developed by China. (second part). Correct me if I'm wrong, but from my interpretation the second part is saying what the first stated but with the American military analysts now backing it up. I think they could be merged into one. What do you think?
  Question: The other citations dispute this claim. Rush Doshi fits the shashoujian/assassin's mace idea as being a specific class of weapons planned out by the Chinese government to advance a comprehensive grand strategy to displace the USA. Souyong Ho says it's just a piece of slang. Or in his own words: It's as if a Chinese researcher, hearing a U.S. official speaking of a need for "kick-ass weapons," were to become confused by the term "kick-ass" and conclude that there must be a secret "kick-ass weapons" program. The sources agree the term is used, but the sources confused as to whether it has a broader meaning. I tried to change the sentence pair so it's clear they're saying different things. Is this OK? Rest of the weasel words I will try to get to either later tonight or tomorrow.
Alright, I think it's more understandable now. Thanks. Once the weasel wording is solved the article can pass.
  Done

Application to military systems

~~A page number for the 8th source would be appreciated!~~
Other than the Gulf War, the 9th source also states the Tiananmen Square and the Soviet colapse as turning points for the PLA to create a new military strategy. Shouldn't that be incorporated?
How much detail should I go into? I've read a decent amount of the book. It's more or less "China has a grand strategy to displace the United States" and it goes into excruciating detail on the mechanisms of the strategy. Probably the best summary would be along the lines of "Doshi argues that the three events caused China to view the United States as a primary threat and began to focus their military on what would best help them defeat America in a conflict". Would that be a good way to phrase it?
It doesn't have to be super detailed, the good article criteria says the article doesn't have to be extensive in its coverage. Yes, the summary is great, I would just specify what the three events were.
I'm willing to go into detail but don't want to overdo it. More hoping for a maximum length.
Uhm. Why did you only specify the Gulf War? If you can provide another page or source that backs that as the most important of the three events, then it would be more than okay leaving it as it was.
I tend to info dump when writing, so I tried not to overdo it. You're pointing out that I underdid it, so I will significantly expand that part to mention all aspects when I have time.

Done. I added a new "grand strategy" section that went into more details.

Submarines

...a director at the Mitre Corporation... I don't think it makes much sense to include Bruzdzinski's job position and company, just seems like it's trying to establish notability for the claim and it's not relevant for the article.
Done

Sea mines

...professor at the American Naval War College... same rationale as per above. According to Andrew S. Erickson, Chinese... or One academic/scholar/military analyst says that Chinese... would be better.
Done
Gulf War is a duplicated wikilink.
Done

Missiles

..."deterring and blocking enemy carrier groups"... a quote here doesn't seem particularly pertinent. I think it would be better if this could be paraphrased.
Done
Regarding the big quotation at the end of the article, paraphrasing is normally preferred instead of quotations and this doesn't seem to fall into WP:QUOTEUSE, so I would suggest if this could be written in your own words (reflecting the source, obviously).
Done

References check

Checked references #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 in this version.

Images check

Checked all images, copyright statuses clear.

References

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Add topic

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]