This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking of taking it to FA and would like some feedback. I would also like to ask what people think how would be best to lay out the legality section and whether using "they are not/illegal in X if XXXX" would be acceptable in a FA. Thanks, The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: After re-opening the peer review I took a look at the article. While it is interesting and a good start, I do not htink it is anywhere near ready for FAC - here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The lead seems too short and does not adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself.
- My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but there is nothing on the legality there
- This is my opinion, but I would put that this is a Star Trek weapon in the first sentence of the lead.
- I would use the creator's quote in the lead and article, something like Designer Dan Curry has called the bat'leth "one of the iconic images associated with the show".
- I am concerned about the image File:Sword of Kahless.JPG as it appears to be (part of?) a screenshot from a Star Trek episode, which would make it copyrighted and a fair use image - instead it is on Commons under a very dubious license.
- I would also crop File:Klingon-weapons.jpg so that more of the image is of the weapons themselves. I do not know if a crop focusing on just one or two of them might be a better lead image.
- The StarTrek.com source gives a length and mass for these "116 centimeters long and weighs 5.3 kilograms" which should be in the article.
- It also translates the Klingon name as "sword of honor" which should be included. It also mentions the four points of the weapon, which seems worth a mention here.
- "...the weapon can be used with either one or both hands." needs a ref, especially since there is a later ref to a different weapon used with just one hand
- One of the FA criteria is comprehensiveness and it seems to me that the part of the article on appearances within Star Trek episodes is very brief and could probably be expanded. There is only the mention that it appears in 29 epsidoes, but I think the series should be mentioned (TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise). If there are sources that mention other memorable episodes featuring the weapon, I would include those too.
- Second part of this sentence seems to me like it needs a ref "However, bat'leths are also considered to be a kind of martial arts sword, which could be seen to tie in to Dan Curry's work in martial arts in films." and to be honest I did not understand the point - how does the tie in with Curry's work affect the legality of owning one?
- The subheaders "In the United Kingdom" (and in the US) could probably be shortened to just "United Kingdom" and "United States".
- This sentence is not backed up by the reference following it "They are classed as weapons, which makes them illegal to carry in a public place." The newspaper article does not really say that.
- I checked one other source, the South Carolina laws page. It makes no specific mention of the bat'leth, so this smack a bit of WP:OR to me - to put it another way, I imagine almost every state has some sort of law about carrying bladed weapons above a certain size / length, so why is there not info on all these laws too?
- Flickr has this free pic of fans in costume, one with a bat'leth - here
- Sears and Amamzon sell them, which seems worth a mention
- Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)