Talk:Great Renunciation/GA1

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This carefully-constructed and well-cited article is essentially ready for GA, and I will make only a few minor comments on it here.

Thanks for the compliment.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brahmin should be capitalised.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may do a little copy-editing for readability and flow.

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait-format images (taller than their width) should be formatted with the |upright parameter.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image "Prince Siddhārtha and Princess Yaśodharā" seems to be a 21st century painting: it should be captioned as a painting with a date (and ideally the name of the painter).

I only know that it is a modern depiction, but I ~~will~~ have contacted the owner on Commons to ask for more details.--13:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Meanwhile, what do you recommend I do with the size? I noticed you made a note.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I understand your note now. You already made an adjustment. Well, that's okay then. Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does the image of the Chinese calendar help the reader to follow the article?

Lol. It's referred to in the last sentence of that section: but in China, the event is celebrated on the 8th day of the second month of the Chinese calendar. Is it okay?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd seen the text but don't see how the image assists. I'll remove it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does " Borges based himself on the The Light of Asia" mean?

Sloppy writing.

Fixed three instances.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the See also link to Celibacy not be worked into the article text?

Celibacy is not used much in RS in this context, because of its Christian connotations. Brahmacariya or Śramana is used, though. The text renounce the world in the article is wikilinked to brahmacariya. I just included the see also link because the life Siddhattha Gotama chose, can be compared to what we call in the west a celibate life.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously right to link "four sights" to the article of that name, but I think the formatting is wrong: or the wording. We might say "the four sights remembered in Buddhism today" or something of that kind; or we could say "The Four Sights" or some similar formatting. But the plain lower case mention doesn't feel right.

Thanks, good catch.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the links to "religious agitation" and "empathy with human suffering" seem to me just slightly too ordinary for their context. It might be best to gloss them with their Pali or Sanskrit terms, e.g. (Saṃvega); other solutions are possible, as for the four sights. Actually I see that this term is glossed further down in the "In Buddhist doctrine" section; I think that should be in the lead as well, as for dukkha which is already there.

Done, I think.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought "meditation" should be wikilinked in lead and main text, unless it's just too common a term in Buddhism!

That's useful.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wikilink "iconography".

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All from Commons, all have licenses.

Summary

This is a fine article, well up to the required standard, and I'm happy to pass it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chiswick Chap! Much appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:42, 17 November 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.