Talk:Jainism/GA4

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 16:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this one. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some good work here, but I do not think that this meets the full GA criteria at the current time. There are various reasons for this.

The lede is one big massive paragraph. It does not follow the guidance available in WP:Lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one citation needed tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of un-referenced pieces of information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the wording does not come across as particularly neutral, but rather appears to promote a pro-Jainist stance. For example, "In Jainism, a human being who has conquered all inner passions and therefore possesses omniscience" presupposes that a human actually can "conquer all inner passions" and "possess omniscience", which may be a core Jainist belief but which certainly is not undisputed fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prose resorts to using lists far too often, in spite of Wikipedia policies which urge against their use wherever possible. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise the nominators (and other editors active on this one) to take a look at the articles on religions which have already received GA status (for instance, I have brought both Heathenry (new religious movement) and Order of Nine Angles to GA status) and see how they are structured, the level of detail that they exhibit etc. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl Thanks for the review. However, I am not able to quite understand the points you have said. Can you please elaborate on points like "does not follow the guidance" and "number of un-referenced pieces". Also, I could not find the citation needed tag. Can you please help me locate. @Corinne can you please help on the neutral comment. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl I could not find a "citation needed" tag. Are you sure you didn't mean the "clarification needed" tag in Jainism#Monasticism (which I probably added as I was copy-editing the article)? I didn't know that lists were to be avoided if at all possible. It sounds, though, as if lists are allowed, and I think sometimes lists make reading easier than including the list in a long sentence. Are you recommending incorporating all the lists in this article into prose?

Yes, I meant a "Clarification needed". Apologies, it was a silly mistake. I wouldn't necessary call for all lists to be turned into prose, but there are cases, for instance when there are only four entries on a list, where it really would work better if incorporated into the prose. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo After you read WP:LEDE and work on the lede a bit, let me know and I'll read it. Just go through each section and pick out the main points of each section and add them to what you already have (and make sure what you already have there is not too detailed). Look at several other religion articles that have been approved for GA and FA and see what is in the ledes and how they reflect the contents of the article. – Corinne (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl @Corinne - Can you please give some comparative / elaborate examples to help me get what you are trying to say about LEDE. I am confused about how to proceed with it. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heathenry (new religious movement) is a GA-rated article on a religious movement, so I would recommend that you look at the lede there. You want for paragraphs in the lede, rather than just one; that would be a good start. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I could add the suggestion to look at articles in the Religion and philosophy section at Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles. Read the ledes of several articles and see how they reflect the main points in the article and how the ledes are organized into paragraphs. – Corinne (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the suggestions, I have tried to improve the Lede. Can you please have a look at it now @Corinne -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capankajsmilyo I read the lead, and I think it is much improved. The sentences are fairly clear and succinct, and the organization into paragraphs is good. There are several minor issues that I want to discuss with you, but I will do so on the article's talk page so as not to take up too much space here on the review page. I'll post the link here when I have finished writing my comments. – Corinne (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Here is the link: Talk:Jainism#Comments regarding the improved lead. – Corinne (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl Seems like your reasons for rejecting the GA have been resolved. Can you please take a look again? Thanks -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having a quick look at the article, I can see various uncited statements (which I have tagged). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl The tags have been resolved. Can you please have a relook now? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf Can you please have a look? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl Is the article eligible now? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's better certainly. I'd recommend sending it to Peer Review to get the prose seen to, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]