Talk:Bat'leth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Philosopher (talk · contribs) 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Unfortunately, I don't believe this article is ready for GA at this time. However, since most of the issues should be fairly simple to fix, I've placed the nomination on hold. Hopefully they can be fixed and the article can still be listed! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 09:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1a and 1b. GA problems

1. Sentences are too short in the lead, very choppy.
2. "Star Trek" is overused in the lead. It can either be removed or replaced with a pronoun in most instances.
3. Several sentences beat around the bush. Examples: "He stated that it is based on" instead of "He based it on". Similarly, "in a lake known as 'the lake of Lursor'" instead of "in the lake of Lursor". Note also that the former example implies a dispute - by saiying "he stated that he based it on", you imply that he didn't actually base it on that, but just said that he did.
   1. Similarly, consider the use of quotation marks - where are they needed and where are they unnecessary? See also Scare quotes#Style guidelines.
4. Does "Earth-equvalent of 625 A.D." in the "Canon" section mean that the event happened during Earth year 625 A.D. or when the Klingon culture was at a stage of development that can be compared to the development of Earth in 625 A.D.? This should be clarified in the article.
5. Authority - the section "Outside Star Trek" begins with "Curry considers ..." that the bat'leth is iconic. You're not basing the entire section on what Curry thinks (and if he created it, he's probably not a reliable source on its fame anyway), you're basing it on the general opinion of the culture. Your sources reflect that fact; so should the section opening.
6. Speaking of which, why is there a section called "Outside Star Trek" when most of the other sections are also outside Star Trek? Perhaps "In popular culture" would be a better header?

• 1a. Not GA issues, but worth thinking about if you want to pursue FA at some point.

1. There are many paragraphs that are just 2-3 sentences. Why is this? A stadard paragraph is more than 2-3 sentences.
2. "Notable." I'm not saying you have to remove the word – I'm not that familiar with the British vocabulary – but consider why you're using it. Are you using it because it's natural or because it's wiki-speak? If the latter, remove it.

• 1b, Not GA issues, but worth thinking about if you want to pursue FA at some point

1. Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article is right on the edge; the article has topped 15k characters, so should really have a lead of 2-3 paragraphs, but it's just barely above 15k characters, so one paragraph is marginally acceptable.
2. If this is also the article for the mek'leth, consider bolding it in the article when it's first mentioned (perhaps in the lead, even).
3. Looking at MOS:APPENDIX made me realize that there's only a References footer. Are there any external links that could be included? Pages explaining about bat'leths elsewhere (perhaps at Memory Alpha?) Why isn't {{Star Trek}} included in the article?

• 2. GA issues. I didn't check all the references individually (I don't have access to the paper ones), but they seem to be well done generally.

1. Reference 13, from the Telegraph-Herald, should have an accessdate= added to it.
2. Reference 17 doesn't match the rest - should be expanded and the date converted.
3. Reference 19 - is Underland Online a reliable source? More to the point, it doesn't say which episode has the bat'leth or even say for certain (just "apparently") that it appears.
4. Reference 28, from the Daily Mail needs both a date and an accessdate.
5. Reference 29 - does the publication have a name or just a domain name?
6. Reference 30 - the square brackets are affecting the link b/c it wants to treat them as wikimarkup. You can avoid that by using {{!(}} and {{)!}}, which create [ and ], respectively.

1. Struck - forgot templates don't work in links.

• 3 and 4. Not GA issues, but worth thinking about if you want to pursue FA at some point

1. Why is there so much focus on legality compared to the rest of the article? It seems like a lot of the article to use up considering that the problem could be shared by any replica weapons.
2. Probably unsourceable, but are there any states/regions where having a bat'leth is not a problem?

• Thank you for reviewing this. I've tried to fix most of the issues you've raised. If you don't mind, I think I'll leave the FA suggestions you made for the moment, last time I tried to rush in with going from GA to FA, the nom got closed quite quickly. I'm not going to try and argue the merits of the Underland source as that was meant to be used to appease those at DYK after I expanded it 5x on what limited sources were avaliable, so i've deleted that sentence. I hope I've done sufficiant for it to get GA status. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's looking much better - one thing, though. I understand the most of the usage of quote marks in the article, but why are "iconic images" and "martial arts" in quotes? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• If I recall, it was to show a quote from the source but as I've rearranged it you're right, they don't really make sense in being there so i've removed them. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I think you should look over the other recommendations even if you're not taking it to FA right away, though - some of them should be fairly simple to put into place and others can provide food for thought if you decide to expand the article further. At any rate, this article is  listed. Congratulations! --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)