Talk:Eight precepts/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tea with toast!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tea with toast, are you still pursuing this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the delay. Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well done article. I enjoyed learning about this topic

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Well done, I like the organization here.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.

I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Just need the one citation to pass.

A few minor things that could be added moving forward (not necessary for a GA pass, but more for expansion to move towards feature article status):

The latter half of the "description" section could be pulled out into an "origin" section.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I am curious about the Iranian origin theory mentioned. Could added a sentence or two to describe this further, if appropriate

Doing...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Apparently, Przyluksi discusses Neo-Babylonian influence, not Iranian. Directly cited and expanded now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article and sources give mention to the 10 precepts; could expand to further delineate the differences between these two.

There are too little sources about this in English language. It could be done by someone familiar and versed in Chinese or Japanese-language scholarship, though. Not me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tea with toast: Thanks for all the tips!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tea with toast: I have now responded to all your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: Great job with the edits. It's looking more polished now. Just need a source to support the sentence in the intro that this was something that was practiced back in 7th-10th century China. I'll pass the article once that is done. Tea with toast (話) 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's already in the body of the text, Tea with toast. Under Eight precepts#History. It is therefore not required to put another citation in the lead. Unless you think it is controversial, that is.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tea with toast, a friendly reminder.-Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the reviewer on his user page, and given him a deadline. He has not responded. Archiving and renominating.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.