Talk:Buddhist devotion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Skyes(BYU) (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Farang Rak Tham. It is my pleasure to do this GA review for you since you have been so helpful to me and my article. Upon first read, the article seems very good quality. I especially like the organization of the article; it is very logical and flows well. I will continue the review tomorrow in more detail. I am interested to learn more about Buddhist devotion, as that is a subject that I have very little knowledge of. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Skyes! Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

There are two references in your list that are not linked to any footnote. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

I am a little confused about footnote 8 in this this section. The reference that it links to does not match the page number listed and I couldn't find the "Three gates of action" when doing a ctrl-f on the page. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Paragraph 4 on the page: "Devotion is expressed through rituals that engage the 'three doors' of body, speech, and mind. I am not certain whether three gates or three doors is used more, but I have now changed the redlink following the source cited.
I also fixed the url, which linked to the wrong volume of the encyclopedia. This appeared to be a problem with several urls that linked to the same encyclopedia series, and I have corrected them now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

Same thing with the Skilling 2005 citation as stated directly above. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the passage "Thai religion has always been inclusive and eclectic, and homage does not neglect the classical deities of India or local spirits of all stripes. Reverence is also due to teachers and parents, and when they are invoked five joss-sticks or five candles may be offered. ... Modern studies tend to compartmentalize divinities, goddesses, and spirits as 'Hindu,' 'non-Buddhist,' or 'animistic,' assigning them static textbook identities that miss the point. In the tolerant pluralism of Southeast Asian culture they are part of a seamless hierarchy of power and merit, with the Buddha, at least ideally, at the top."

Symbols

Yeah, I would check out that Skilling citation...I wonder if the pdf you linked is different or something... Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the passage in question: Shrines housing replicas of the soles of a Buddha’s feet (positive models) or of his footprints (negative impressions)s the primary icon are common. The replicas are made on stone slabs, wooden panels, or cloth painting. In addition to replicas, there are also “natural” footprints, believed to have been left by a buddha—not only Sākyamuni, but also his three predecessors in this “Auspicious Aeon.”

Overall

The article looks really good. Just fix the Skilling citations so that the correct pdf is linked and/or the correct page number is listed in the footnote for a future reader to go check out. I am going to allow myself to get some fresh eyes over the weekend and I will re-read the article on Monday and double check for grammar, MoS, clarity, and overall flow. I can imagine finishing up the review on Monday as there are very few flaws in the article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Thoughts

Thanks for making the changes with the references; that helps a lot. I made a couple of small copy edits, but other than that the article looks great. The flow is logical, the article is clear, and the prose is easy to understand. I'm ready to pass the article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Skyes(BYU)!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas for a DYK nomination?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Farang Rak Tham, I found self-immolation to be pretty interesting. I had no idea it was a form of Buddhist devotion practice. I'm pretty bad at coming up with good hooks, but at least that's a suggestion for a topic to think about since it's a pretty dense article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·