Talk:Macuahuitl/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 16:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Will take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria
Interesting article. Generally well written, but please see below for some MOS feedback. For most part, the article is supported by reliable sources, some of which I’ve spot checked. However, see below for feedback about citation and verifiability. No plagiarism found: earwig found some “possible” matches but they are all quotations from Spanish conquistadors’ accounts.

I believe the article’s coverage is broad and does not go into irrelevant details. It’s neutral: for sure it uses many Spanish colonial sources, (presumably because the Aztecs’ own account tend to not survive, but they’re all presented in neutral manner. The article is stable and is illustrated by appropriate images, which all have appropriate copyright tag.


 * Update: My feedback about citations and verifiability have been addressed. Passing this as GA now. Thank you for the interesting article, and for responding to my review. HaEr48 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific feedback

 * “A macuahuitl (singular) is a …” I don’t think it’s necessary to note “(singular)” for the word because it’s already used as a singular word in this sentence?
 * Deleted.


 * “ It was the only weapon which used ceramic… “ Why does ceramic link to flint and not just ceramic?
 * Because the sentence is nonsense. Apologies. Deleted.


 * Also, the above passage is kind of contradictory, at first it says it’s the only ceramic weapon, then it says it’s comparable to modern ceramic knife. Can you clarify?
 * Clarified. (Obsidian.)


 * Please clarify whether the sharp edge is actually ceramic or obsidian.
 * Clarified.


 * “It is sometimes referred to as a sword or as a club, but it lacks a true European equivalent; it is perhaps best described as a baton with a cutting edge.” -> Is this an editor’s personal opinion, or is it supported by RS?
 * Rephrased and sourced.


 * “According to one source” -> Just name the source here, as per WP:WEASEL
 * Named


 * Some YouTube videos linked in the article (e.g. the History channel one) is uploaded by third party user and not the original publisher. As per WP:YOUTUBE, “Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows ... are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.”
 * YouTube clips replaced with videos uploaded by the copyright holders.


 * Sourcing in “modern times” section is based entirely on self-published or user-generated content, which is not acceptable (WP:RSSELF). In addition, the article concludes that the macuahuitl “experienced a revival” and “enjoys a cult following”, just because there are multiple video/article about it, which is contrary to WP:SYNTH: “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. The right approach to support this statement is to find a reliable source which says something about the weapon’s revival or cult following.
 * Deleted. (The best source I can find isn't that good. And on review the section doesn't add much to the article.)


 * Citations must include author, title, date, and publisher, and many are missing these info. These things are important to evaluate whether the source is reliable or not. Citations that say ‘"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-02-13. Retrieved 2015-01-30.”’ are certainly not enough, and citaitions in form of ‘"Nahuatl Dictionary/Diccionario del náhuatl". Whp.uoregon.edu. Retrieved 2016-09-24.’ are missing author info and the actual name of the publisher. There are a few of these, I don’t want to list one by one, please fix all. Shortened footnotes like Soustelle (1961), p.209 are okay as long as complete citations are given elsewhere.
 * I am a bit puzzled here. Probably because references aren't my strong point. I have never been asked to give a publisher or date for a website before and am not sure how to do it. All of the paper references seem fully labeled to me. I did find that citation 1, to one you mention, linked to the website home page rather than the page referred to; now corrected. I have also removed and/or replaced the "Archived copy" links. I would appreciate some guidance here.

--HaEr48 (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your update. Re references, see this diff to see what I'm talking about Basically, the more info you can find from the source (especially, author, publisher, year), the easier it is to judge whether the source is reliable, and reliability of sources is important for GA. See also WP:CITEHOW. Right now the citations are still not ideal (inconsistent style, mix of long and short citation, etc.) but I guess it already meets minimum requirement of GA. But please, improve it if you can. One trick I found and like is to use Help:Shortened footnotes style. You list complete references in one section, and then use the sfn template throughout article to refer to your source by name and year only - the template takes care of the linking. It makes the citation section so much neater and also it's easier for reader to quickly find what "Hassig (1988)" means You can see I use it in Muhammad I of Granada. Anyway, this is just my suggestion, not a requirement for GA.


 * Most of your updates look fine. I just found out that the second paragraph of the lead contain information that's not supported in the body. Refs are not necessary in lead, but the content needs to be found and referenced in the body. Please incorporate info in paragraph 2 in the body, with references, or otherwise you can rewrite the paragraph to contain info that's already supported in the body. Remember, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the content of the body. HaEr48 (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the diff. Looking at it the referencing is a bit of a mix. I will start work on standardising it. Regarding the information in the lead, you are quite right. I have rewritten it to show a wider usage than the sentence you picked up does, and supported it with a new, sourced, sentence at the end of "Origins and distribution".


 * Apologies. I was reading what I expected to see. I had selected different groups from the same source to illustrate the distribution and not realised. Rather than put another reference in the lead I have rewritten so that the four groups now mentioned in the lead are all covered in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)