Talk:Sacca-kiriya
Sacca-kiriya has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 11, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
A fact from Sacca-kiriya appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA review
[edit]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
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sacca-kiriya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm starting this review. I should have detailed comments later today. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead could more adequately summarize the page. Could you expand it? | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | All sources are academic. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | *"Sacca-kiriyā is a compound noun that derives from the root verb saccikaroti" I couldn't find where in the dictionary it mentioned the root verb of Sacca-kiriyā. Is this something that is just obvious if one knows Sanskrit, or is there other research involved?
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | None found with copyvio detector or reference checks. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article discusses sacca-kiriyā from multiple time periods and religions. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | The file information states that File:Bodhisatta Gautama with bowl.jpg is a photo of a wall painting in a Laotian monastery, but doesn't indicate when the original painting was painted and if it might be in the public domain.
The work depicted in File:019 Visit of King Asoka to the Bodhi Tree (33769320382).jpg is definitely in the public domain, but isn't tagged as such. I don't know if there's enough information on File:015 Angulimala (9140566999).jpg to determine if the work it depicts in the public domain.
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. | Interesting article and impressive research! On hold for the issues noted above. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
June 2018
[edit]I think I have addressed all comments now, Rachel Helps (BYU). --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- ping, ping.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of my concerns have been resolved. Passing this nomination. Let me know if you nominate for DYK! 19:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rachel Helps (BYU). I will certainly do a DYK, and ping you. I am glad the article made sense.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- All of my concerns have been resolved. Passing this nomination. Let me know if you nominate for DYK! 19:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
DYK brainstorm
[edit]Rachel Helps (BYU), Wikiman5676, can you think of any DYKs? I don't quite know where to start this time.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe this? ... that in ancient Buddhist stories, a person "can bend the cosmic forces to his will" through an act of truth?
- --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- That could work. a potential ALT can be something like ...that the Indian spiritual concept of truthfulness can also apply to groups such as courtesans? Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest to move the page as a sub on Sacca as it is the main topic of this article. Any ideas? Faredoka (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)