Talk:Sacca-kiriya/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: Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm starting this review. I should have detailed comments later today. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.	"Judging from the story of courtesan Bindumatī..." This paragraph is a bit confusing. Maybe you could change the topic sentence to be about how scholars disagree about where the sacca-kiriyā's power comes from? Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] The examples help, but I still feel like I don't completely understand what a sacca-kiriyā looks like. One complete quote in the examples section would help me (as a reader) understand the ritualized speech act better. The "These texts will usually contain" sentence helped me to understand how the truth was connected to the wish or blessing. Done. Reorganized and expanded the article. I moved the examples section upward, and expanded on the examples. I also moved the sentence you mentioned to the definition section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] "Kong states that such an ancient Vedic belief had not yet developed in Vedic times." -the "such" seems at odds with the statement. If it's so ancient, how is it not old enough? Maybe "the Vedic belief, though ancient, had not yet developed"? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how you're using "such"-- it's more like "Thompson and Kong argue that the "ancient Vedic belief" Brown referred to was not, in fact, an ancient Vedic belief." Please reword this part. Silly mistake. Removed ancient Vedic--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] It sounds like there isn't consensus on its origins? After reading the section, I don't have a clear idea of the possible times the practice started. Is pre-Buddhist younger than Rig Veda? Please wikilink rta and give some more context (I don't know if ancient Indians come before or after Rig Veda). Fixed by expanding. The practice was ancient and pre-Buddhist--there is consensus about that. But the idea of a moral fulfillment of one's duties is by later scholars like Kong and Thompson believed to be much later. In Vedic times, religious ethical thought was still not much developed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	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? Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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? Fixed. Nah, i gave you the wrong page. My mistake, sorry.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	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. It is not. Removed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply] 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. Fixed.Malaysia has freedom of panorama. Added right tag.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
	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)[reply]

June 2018

I think I have addressed all comments now, Rachel Helps (BYU). --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ping, ping.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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.