Talk:The Sword of Kahless/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm reviewing this article. It's my practice to do a general review by filing out the template, and then do a more thorough prose and source review. See below. I also tend to copy-edit as I go. Note: I'm using this review for the GA Recruitment Centre. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

My first impression: nice job. Well-put together, and well-written, with a few exceptions.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose looks good at first glance. See below for a more comprehensive review. This article should pass with a few changes and no major re-write.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Complies with MOS.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Picky note, which you're not required to follow: I recommend changing "Bibliography" to "Works cited". I suggest this because technically, a bibliography is a list of sources at least consulted. It protects you from editors coming in to add sources that have little to do with your article.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Spot-checked a few sources. Will AGF that the info supported by your texts check out for close paraphrasing and accuracy. For many of the GAs I review, I tend to do a more thorough source review along with my prose review, and I think that's what I'll do here. See below.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Very stable; no edits since late May, when it was expanded shortly before nomination.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I'm not the best judge of images, but they seem tagged fine to me. If you intend on bringing this to FAC, I suggest getting a second opinion first.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   I'm not sure that the images of the Wagner tuba and the steel patterns are relevant. I wonder if there are better ones. Perhaps one of Farrell in the filming section? I have no ideas for the "Props" section, but I'm notoriously bad at suggestions. To be safe, I'd remove it completely, although I'll leave that up to you. Again, you may need a second opinion.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   See below for a more comprehensive and picky prose and source review. At this point, I don't see any glaring issues preventing an easy pass once we get past that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review. I'll stick my comments down here rather than after each bullet as I'm always worried about breaking formatting like that! :) I've removed those two images and added a new one - I realised the bat'leth article had a decent image with a replica sword in it, so that'd help with comparisons to the design of the normal ones. As for the references section - I've sort of adopted that format for the Star Trek episode articles after noting that it was commonly used at Featured Article level (yesterday's front page article Pisco sour for example). Miyagawa (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

   Just noted that example doesn't in fact use the same formatting, but does use bibliography in the same context and purpose (although as an individual heading rather than a subheading). Miyagawa (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the images are much better. The formatting suggestions were just that--suggestions--and I'd much rather that you follow already-established conventions. I'll make a subheading for the prose and source review, to make all of our lives easier. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Prose and source review

• I review the lead last, since I tend to write them last and so that I can be familiar with the rest of the article first.

Plot

• You don't explain what Kor was doing at DS9. IIRC, it was because he was visiting his friend Dax, but you need to tell us that.
  • Redrafted it to add that. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Should you expand the military ranks, or is it convention to abbreviate them?
  • Seeing as I had only abbreviated Lieutenant, I've expanded those. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Afterwards he explains to Jadzia and Worf... "Afterwards": Do you mean at Quark's? If not, where and when?
  • Not sure how afterwards got in there - I'm pretty sure it was part of the same conversation as the previous sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• He received a shroud from a Vulcan science team, which he gives to Jadzia to test. What does the shroud have anything to do with the sword? I think you need to explain that it helps prove the existence of the sword. You also mix your tenses here.
  • Redrafted - I've left in the mixed tense as he received the shroud prior to the start of the episode. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• What memories did Kor lose?
  • I've defined that better. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• They are attacked by Toral (Rick Pasqualone), son of Duras, and his men. Serial commas can be a pain. This sounds like they were attacked by three people, mostly due to the parenthetical and compounded by the fact that "son of Duras" is Toral's title. I suggest removing "and his men" because you mention them in the next sentence. If you do that, I also suggest that you connect this sentence with the next one, using the connector "who", which would vary your sentences more.
  • Done as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Lethian" is spelled two different ways. Why did Toral hire him? IIRC, it was to harm Kor to slow them down?
  • Fixed to Lethean. Also went back into the first paragraph and explained the original attack. It was to find out what Kor knew about the sword. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Didn't Toral want to find the sword because it would help him be approved by his father and by the Klingons?
  • Duras was already several years dead by that point - Worf killed him back in series three of TNG (the same episode as Gowron's first appearance). It is never that clear why Toral wanted it - certainly it was either to present it to the clone of Kahless or use it to become Chancellor and overthrown Gowron. Considering the history of the House of Duras, probably the latter. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• As they travel through the caves, Kor begins to talk about how the sword would allow him to overthrow Chancellor Gowron and Emperor Kahless, Worf suggests that he should be the one to lead the Klingons. Run-on sentence. You need to explain that the sword is having a negative effect on the Klingons, and how.
  • Re-drafted the end of that paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• It is broken up as Toral and his men find them, but after the fight... I'm confused about what fight you're talking about. Worf and Kor fight, and then I assume that there's a fight with Toral. I think you should explain how they get to the point of being able to get away.
  • Redrafted those linked sentences. Basically Worf and Kor start to fight, Toral turns up and Kor and Worf fight him and his men instead. Then once that's over, Kor and Worf start fighting again. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice job, everything is much clearer now. I made a couple of changes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Writing

• Is it convention to not abbreviate the show titles?
  • We don't really have a convention on that. But I've reduced several down to the abbreviations. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The Sword of Kayless" was the first Deep Space Nine episode to feature Worf, a former Star Trek: The Next Generation character, in a leading role. I wonder if it would be better if you said, "a character who had been introduced on TNG"? Remember that a character doesn't play a role; an actor does. I think you should say, "to predominately focus on Worf" and remove the last phrase.
  • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Your explanation of why it took so long for Worf to be featured as a major character is a bit muddled. I want to re-write it, like this: "Michael Dorn had joined the cast at the beginning of season four, but his character was not featured prominently in the first eight episodes of the season because they had been scripted prior to conformation that Dorn would be joining the show. "The Sword of Kahless" was the first episode to be written after his arrival, so it was the first time his character was featured centrally." If you do that, you won't need the phrase "in a leading role" in the first sentence.
  • Done. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• It's unclear what show Behr worked for during season three, TNG or DS9. Please clarify.
  • Rejigged it to be clearer. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Were these the only two TNG episodes Danus wrote?
  • Well... they were the only ones he was credited for. He was brought in to take over from Maurice Hurley who quit at the end of season two and was disliked by a lot of the writing staff. I did just notice that Danus had also written the teleplay for "Battle Lines" in the first season of DS9 which the source didn't mention. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• It was Behr who gave Danus the opportunity to write for Deep Space Nine, as he had been a friend to him during his arrival on The Next Generation. Did they become friends after they starting working together on TNG? I ask because I think that this needs a little restructuring, and how I want to suggest it depends upon this information.
  • Redrafted for clarity. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• The writing staff were disappointed in the fan reaction to the episode as the feedback received said that the fans wanted there to be a technological explanation for the effects of the sword. A little muddled. How about: "The writing staff were disappointed in the reaction of many fans, who wanted a technological explanation for the effects of the sword."
  • Changed as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• You say that the writers took care that there wasn't a mystical or technological explanation for the sword's effects, but the plot section makes it seem like that wasn't the case. If it was just the hunger for power that made the Klingons react, you need to state that. And why didn't Dax feel the same effects? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Outside comment: I just re-read the plot section and don't see any implication of a mystical or technological explanation. As for the "hunger for power", it already appears in the plot section ("Toral...wants the sword for the prestige of finding it...Kor begins to talk about how the sword would allow him to overthrow Chancellor Gowron and Emperor Kahless...if the sword divided two men as honorable as they, then it would do the same to the Klingon Empire"). With that said, your question makes me think that the single sentence, "Afterwards he explains to Jadzia and Worf his plan to find the legendary Sword of Kahless", isn't enough, and could possibly be expanded to a second sentence briefly addressing why the sword is legendary and so important to Klingons as a symbol. Dax didn't feel the same effects because she wasn't Klingon. Throughout the series, we are constantly reminded of the Klingons having an almost genetic predisposition for power, battle and dominance over what they perceive as weakness, with references to Klingon bloodlust, etc. Both Klingons had also been inculcated with the legend of the sword from birth (Worf less so since he was adopted by Federation citizens as a child). The only thing similar I can think of are mythological stories about the search for the Holy Grail. If a non-Christian was helping to search for it, it might have less of an impact on them. It's a weak and twisted analogy, but I hope you see my point. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

No, you're very clear. I think the reason this isn't clear is that the episode isn't clear. As one of the reviewers stated, it depends upon the audience's knowledge about Klingons and their culture. I remember understanding this difference as I watched it, but I've watched ST most of my life and am familiar with the mythology, and I think that the writers were depending upon that. That's not a bad thing, but it affects how articles here are written. I don't think that an article about an individual episode should explain it; the place for that is Klingon and other ST articles. I wonder if the solution for our purposes is to add information here about analysis of the episode, which may explain some of the cultural factors and the connection to the Holy Grail mythology. This depends upon if there's the information out there about it, of course. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the extra line to the plot to explain the sword. The only line I have about the episode and the holy grail is the line about LeVar Burton describing it as such. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Filming, casting and music

• Nice job putting all these concepts under the same heading. Many editors separate out each concept, which makes for short sections, which I don't like.
• Restraints on the time available to shoot the episode resulted in edits to the script. Passive voice, but I'm not sure how to fix it, since it's unclear who made the edits. Was it Beimler?
  • I've tweaked it a bit. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• You say that Beimler had written cave sequences that was cut due to time. There were other sequences that didn't get cut, right? If so, you need to say that some of the sequences were cut.
  • I've modified it in line with the previous sentence. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Because of the limited nature of these sets, Burton said that he worked alongside director of photography Jonathan West to use the depth of the sets to give the same area several different looks so as to make it look as though the trio of Kor, Worf and Dax were moving through a complex labyrinth of caves. A little convoluted, har har. How about: "The sets were limited, so Burton said that in order to make it look like the characters were moving through a complex labyrinth of caves, he and director of photography Jonathan West used the sets' depth to make them look like different parts of the caves."
  • Modified as noted. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Instead of explaining it here, I'm copy-editing; if you disagree with them, feel free to revert.
  • Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Was this Colicos' 2nd DS9 appearance? If so, how about: "John Colicos had appeared as Kor once before on DS9, in the second season episode "Blood Oath". And remember, in the U.S., we call them "seasons".
• Changed as noted. I've also modified the following sentence as I found out today from an article on the Star Trek website that he was actually the second Klingon to appear on screen (the first appeared a matter of seconds before him). However he did invent the look for the Klingons in TOS. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 5: This is a concern regarding most of the sources, other than the three companions: Many of your sources are user-generated, like blogs or obvious fan sites. (I suppose the texts are fan/user-generated, too, but that's another discussion.) I'm AGF that these sites are at least trustworthy, and I think adequate for GAs, but I can tell you that they probably wouldn't be accepted at FAC. You should take that into account.
  • We've been trying to sort the sourcing out for these articles in fact. We've started working on a list of proper sources along with reasoning, which is located here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/Sources. I've taken all but TrekMovie to FA with the nomination of "In a Mirror, Darkly" which while it wasn't promoted, it wasn't thrown out on the basis of those sources either. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. I think that you should inform future reviewers of your list, at the start of the review, to expedite things. It looks like the only sources not on your list are TrekNation and DVDTalk. I'm not opposed to you using them, but it you could find the same information in a more reliable source, that would be great. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Props

• The titular sword in "The Sword of Kahless" was intended to be the original Bat'leth, which in Klingon mythology was created by Kahless from a length of his own hair which was dipped into lava from the Kri'stak volcano and then cooled and hardened in the lake of Lusor. "Titular" is a peacock word; I'd remove it. Do you mean to capitalize "Bat'leth" here? I don't think that you need all this description, since you link bat'leth and I assume that information is in its article. Then you could combine it with the next sentence, to vary things. How about: "The sword in "The Sword of Kahless" was intended to be the first Bat'leth made by, according to Klingon mythology, Kahless himself, which he used to defeat the tyrant Molor and unite the Klingon people for the first time in their history."
  • Changed as noted - however I meant "titular" as a reference to the title of the episode rather than anything peacock-y. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Who decided that the sword needed to be different? I ask because I'd like to correct the passive voice.
  • The source says that it was ordered by Joe Longo (who worked on the art department) but didn't state who decided that one was needed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• What do you mean by "...numerous designs by John Eaves were considered on paper"? Did Eaves draw several versions on paper and then the design was chosen from it?
  • Yes. The source has two examples of other designs not used. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• As with the original bat'leth, Dan Curry created the prop. You say before that the prop used for this episode was the original bat'leth. You already say that Curry made it for TNG, so this is redundant. How about: "Curry, like he had done on TNG, created the prop used for this episode as well."
• Ref 11: This kind of gets into what I said above about your sources in general. I'm AGF about the TrekMovie.com site, but most of the article is based upon an article in Mashable, which WP doesn't consider a reliable source. I'd bet that you'd get pinged about it. My suggestion is to look for other more reliable sources that have the same information and replace them if possible.
  • That's a fair point - I hadn't noticed the Mashable issue. I remember why I used that source - it was because of the Chinese fighting crescent point, which I've now removed and re-cited. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 12: Tag warning about possible deletion. Personal note: This is totally why I personally don't use citation templates. I think that creating cites by hand is more efficient and easier to manage and navigate through. I'm not suggesting that you change the citation format for this GAC, but I'm just sayin'... ;)
  • I looked it this and it isn't as bad as it looks - although its been listed as a possible deletion, its actually a move to rename the citation template and merge it with the DVD liner notes template. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 19: Amazon.com isn't a reliable source, although I understand why you included it, so that you could have the DVD release date. Is there another source that has the same information that you could use?
• The only other one I can find is Memory Alpha is really isn't reliable (its another Wiki). Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead: Ah, you abbreviate DS9 here. Did you mean to? If so, you need to abbreviate it in parenthesis first, as is the convention. I also suggest that you abbreviate it (and TOS and TNG) throughout the article, if that's the convention in ST articles.

• I've redrafted those bits in the lead to avoid the abbreviation and then used the convention down in the writing section as I thought it was neater than including it in the lead. Miyagawa (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Review finished. I'll ping the nominator, and give you a week (until 7/25) to address my feedback. Once you do that, it should be an easy pass. Thanks, this was very fun to review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with the changes that you've made. Nice work, keep it up. That was fun! Makes me want to go out and watch some DS9 episodes. (My favorite all-time ST episode is a DS9 one: The Visitor (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). ;)

Thanks for reviewing. That reminded me how much more I prefer working on the DS9 articles than the TNG ones - the sourcing is so much more interesting. I'm aiming to work up "Melora" soon as the interesting thing there was that the extra character in that episode was originally going to be in the main cast, but was replaced by Dax. I also want to do Ro Laren as a GA, mainly because I think the impact that one character had on the DS9 is significant for someone who never ended up in the show. Oh, and "Our Man Bashir" and "Little Green Men" too - those were also some of my favourites. I think "The Visitor" is probably going to be held off a treat for me further down the line much in the same way as "The Inner Light" for TNG (although admittedly I did nearly start work on that a couple of weeks ago after a new interview was posted with the writer of that episode on the official website). It worked with season one, because if I had let myself do "The Big Goodbye" early on then I could probably have never managed to get myself to do some of the not so great episodes although to be honest once I started them then I found that even they were rather interesting. Thanks for reviewing! Miyagawa (talk) 08:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)