Talk:Khanjar/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Matty.007 (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I don't forget... I may take a few days coming to it, but this is so that I do review it. Thanks, Mat ty.007 09:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand lead
Is it possible to expand 'History'?
Gold or silver: wikilink both or neither

Fixed. Wikilinked both. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, with the international ban on the ivory trade, the usage of other materials – such as wood, plastic, and camel bone – have become more prevalent--> "However, with the international ban on the ivory trade, the usage of other materials – such as wood, plastic, and camel bone – has become more prevalent"

Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It use to form part of everyday attire--> "It used to form part of everyday attire"

Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the dagger is designed by its future owner himself: couldn't find in source given

At the end of the second last paragraph: It is traditionally crafted to its owner’s specifications, including body proportions and personal preferences in terms of style. Not too sure if my own words match the essence of what is stated in the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "The khanjar is customarily commissioned at the time a boy becomes sexually mature. It is traditionally crafted to its owner’s specifications, including body proportions and personal preferences in terms of style", and the article's "designed by the future owner himself" does not appear to feature. All other responses good (please can you respond to the FLC?). Thanks, Mat ty.007 14:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that having the owner specify his personal stylistic preferences is exactly the same as he designing it himself. Granted, he doesn't make it himself (the craftsman does), but its clearly designed by him, since he has the final say on how it will look like. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the khanjar was originally created as a weapon to attack and defend, it is utilized solely for ceremonial and practical purposes today: simply repeating from earlier, *however, it is now carried as a "ceremonial dagger",[11] and worn only for formal events and ceremonies – such as weddings, parades, meetings, and diplomatic functions – among many other occasions

I still feel it is necessary to highlight its past usage as well as its current practical use, which the latter sentence does not do (it only covers the ceremonies it is worn at). —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weddings, parades, meetings, and diplomatic functions is similar to the source, "parades, weddings, diplomatic events".

Yes, and that is permissible per WP:LIMITED. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Other uses': perhaps one picture on the right, one on the left?

Normally, I would agree. However, in this article, that would necessitate having one of the images appear on the left at the start of the subsection. I forgot where I read this (either MOS or some guideline) but it's preferable not to have any images to the left at the beginning of a (sub)section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Symbolism' section
Similarity to Janbiya?

According to this PDF, the janbiya is a local term from Yemen (and eastern Arabia), while khanjar is the Arabic term for a dagger (and used in western Arabia). The term guide at the end of this novel says that the khanjar is similar to the jambiya, while this encyclopedia says that there are differences between the two. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you could verify any of this information and add it that would be great (ignorethe mistranslation, sorry about that)

As the German WP article doesn't have any sources or external links, I'm reluctant to trust it as a source for adding info. However, after a quick glance it seems most of the info is already included in this Eng. WP article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Wikipedia states "It is often mistakenly confused with the Jambiya the Arabs , from which it derives." (Google translate, so possible errors). Is this true?

Haven't read that in any sources, but it sounds likely, given that the terms are frequently (and incorrectly) interchanged in English, according to the PDF I provided above. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian WP also disputes origins, claiming Italy and Iran. Any truth/English sources backing this up?

I haven't read that in any of the English refs I've consulted. They all seem to universally agree that it is from Oman. I have read somewhere (I forgot which website) that terms that are similar to "khanjar" (perhaps corruptions of the word) are used in Iran and India. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On both Italian and German WP, this image is given as a khanjar. Is it?

Doesn't look like it. The "J" curve isn't as extreme as the one depicted in the Eng. WP pic – that's a key distinguishing factor for Omani khanjars. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italian WP also has 'Construction' section, maybe useful info to add if verifiable
Mention Bait al Zubair?
Perhpas section on it in media, such as the film involving it, the ship
In Poland, seems to be called Handżar, and they claim it gave its name to an SS division, worth checking on
Wiktionary gives the word as coming from Iranian, which seems to back up the claim it comes from Iran
Info in [1]
Encyclopaedia Brittanica says "Many men continue to carry a short, broad, curved, and often highly ornate dagger known as a khanjar (sometimes called a janbiyyah or jambiya), which is worn tucked in the front waistband"-maybe some useful info

I think that's enough for now. Sorry for all the bizarre links, but I think it needs some more info to be complete. Thanks, Mat ty.007 13:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I warned you several times, it is now infeasable to complete this review before the end of the WikiCup as I am going away until the end of the month (and am trying to stay off Wikipedia anyway). I can continue the review upon my return from holiday, or can stop reviewing it and put it back in the pool, whichever you prefer. Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with you putting it back in the GAN pool (or failing it, whichever one is simpler to do). I'll ask for your 2006 CECAFA Cup GAN to be reposted, and we can call it even if that's alright with you. Cheers, and enjoy your holiday! —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, I decided to hold off reviewing the CECAFA Cup article after reading the retirement statement on your talkpage earlier in the month. I didn't know when you'd be back, but I'm still willing to review it if you want. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Returned to pool with no fail notice on talk page. Re CECAFA Cup, I don't think it's really fair on you to ask you to do a review in return for one which I didn't complete, so please return to the pool/fail. Thanks for understanding, Mat ty.007 07:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]