Talk:Rāhula/GA2

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: MX (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Will review. Stay put! MX (✉ • ✎) 21:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MX!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: I'm reading over the article and noticed a lot of it is written in present-tense instead of past-tense (i.e. "Rāhula is born on same day Prince Siddhārtha Gautama renounces the throne by leaving the palace", which uses "is" instead of "was"). Since we're covering people and accounts from the past, shouldn't it be written in past tense?

@MX:, I meant to write in historical present tense to keep a skeptical, encyclopedic tone. But I've been told before it doesn't work, so if you want me to change it to past tense, I can do that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Farang Rak Tham: Please do. I went to the article about Jesus and noticed they use present tense only when paraphrasing events from the scriptures. Ping me when this is done and I'll start my review. In the meantime, I'll be checking sources and continue reading the article to familiarize with it. It looks ripe for promotion as it stands. Thanks! MX (✉ • ✎) 21:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MX:,

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

Some early texts such as those of the Pāli tradition do not mention Rāhula at all ... on monastic discipline of the Mūlasarvāstivāda and Mahāsaṇghika traditions – Would it be reasonable to ask when these "early texts" were written? Like the era (example: 4th–5th century CE). It may give readers a bit of context that time.

Good idea, but is quite an extensive subject which is hard to surmise here. I have wikilinked to Early Buddhist Texts. Will that do?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

affected the prince on his path to enlightenment. – Question: How is Gautama Buddha usually referred to? Prince Siddhārtha? Prince? Siddhārtha? Or another name? I'm asking because there are instances when you write "Prince Siddhārtha" and sometimes "Prince". I don't know anything about the subject so I want to make sure we're sticking to his most common name.

He is most commonly referred to by scholars as "Prince Siddhārtha" before attaining enlightenment, and "the Buddha" after enlightenment. I sometimes switch to the prince for stylistic reasons, to not make the writing stilted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pāli tradition

meaning 'A rāhu is born, a fetter has arisen' – I think it should be in "quotations" but please correct me if I'm wrong.

Fixed. I am not sure whether MOS:SINGLE is valid here, so I have corrected this.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rāhula therefore became Prince Siddhārtha's first, but also last and only son – "... first and only son" is fine since it would imply it was his last.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other traditions

Great section overall. Excellent explanation of the other versions regarding his birth

Thank you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

proves Yaśodharā's innocence: – Virginity?

Purity in conduct. Rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in this version, the Buddha made everyone around him look identical to him, through a supernatural accomplishment. – Back to my original question of using "Prince", "Buddha", etc. Why don't we stick to one?

Let's discuss this above.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Śuddhodana welcomeed her and her son back into the clan, – Welcomed

Oops. Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly analysis

Good section here. Just a bit confused on the there would have been no sound reason for him to leave secretly at night. Did Buddha intend to leave secretly at night?

Fixed Expanded--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ordination

When Rāhula was seven,[13] nine[39][40] or fifteen[41] years old – Just a suggestion, but instead of doing this why don't you copyedit it to "When Rāhula was between seven and fifteen years old...", and then add a footnote explaining the discrepancy between the sources. It reads smoother and can give readers a better understanding of how the sources may differ.

Good idea. Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—indologist Bhikkhu Telwatte Rahula argues that the child was conscious of being without father. – IMO, the sentence should end with "...and he was told." And then continue with this, though it naturally flows better as a footnote.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it reads better with "without a father".

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She told Rāhula that since his father had renounced the palace life and as he was the next royal prince in line, he should ask his father for his inheritance of crown and treasure, for his future sake when his grandfather would no longer rule the kingdom. – Run-on sentence, consider restructuring.

Fixed. Split.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rāhula followed the Buddha, asking him for his inheritance – "Rāhula followed and asked him for his inheritance", or something similar.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rāhula ordained and was the first śrāmaṇera (novice monk) – "Rāhula was ordained and became the first śrāmaṇera (novice monk)"

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a group of young boys ordained together with him – Should it be "...were ordained together..."?

Right, my mistake. Fixed several instances.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enlightenment and death

Great section here, no issues found. This section is a bit long so I'll give it a second read later.

Okay, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous lives

Short and good section.

Legacy

Tradition states therefore that Rāhula is still alive – Is this true now, or was it true some time in the past? I just want to make sure this info isn't written in present-tense when it shouldn't be, since info in Wikipedia can easily be outdated.

Fixed. He is stated to be alive until the next Buddha will arise, so yes, that would mean he is still alive now. But i have rephrased it to sound more encyclopedic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood in Buddhism

were sophisticated for the time period – What does this mean? Further explanation would help readers understand a bit more.

Fixed. Specified per source.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Footnotes are cited appropriately.

Citations

Great use of reliable sources. All citations link to their respective books. Pages are added when needed.

Thanks, am a bit template-crazy.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Per above. Great use of sources.

External links

This source here doesn't work for me. Says "You're offline". Is that because the link is dead or does it require log-in credentials?

Fixed. No, they changed the url by removing an author from the url. I have no idea why. Archiving this time.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this website cannot be archived. Bugger.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Thanks for your review, MX. Much appreciated!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:55, 22 September 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.