Login
Login

Talk:Eight precepts/GA1

GA Review

{{archive top}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Eight precepts/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Eight precepts/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

:* {{u|Tea with toast}}, are you still pursuing this?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

::Yes, sorry for the delay. Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well done article. I enjoyed learning about this topic

: Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. Is it well written?
  2. :A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. :B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: {{GAList/check|y}}
  5. ::
  6. Is it verifiable with no original research?
  7. :A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. :: Well done, I like the organization here.
  9. :B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: {{GAList/check|?}}
  10. :: Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.

::::: I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  1. :C. It contains no original research: {{GAList/check|y}}
  2. ::
  3. :D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: {{GAList/check|y}}
  4. ::
  5. Is it broad in its coverage?
  6. :A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: {{GAList/check|y}}
  7. ::
  8. :B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): {{GAList/check|y}}
  9. ::
  10. Is it neutral?
  11. :It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. Is it stable?
  14. : It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
  17. :A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: {{GAList/check|y}}
  18. ::
  19. :B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: {{GAList/check|y}}
  20. ::
  21. Overall:
  22. :Pass or Fail: {{GAList/check|?}}
  23. :: Just need the one citation to pass.

A few minor things that could be added moving forward (not necessary for a GA pass, but more for expansion to move towards feature article status):

  • The latter half of the "description" section could be pulled out into an "origin" section.

:: {{Done}}.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I am curious about the Iranian origin theory mentioned. Could added a sentence or two to describe this further, if appropriate

:: {{Doing}}--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

::: {{Done}}. Apparently, Przyluksi discusses Neo-Babylonian influence, not Iranian. Directly cited and expanded now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The article and sources give mention to the 10 precepts; could expand to further delineate the differences between these two.

:: There are too little sources about this in English language. It could be done by someone familiar and versed in Chinese or Japanese-language scholarship, though. Not me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Tea with toast (話) 03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

: {{re|Tea with toast}} Thanks for all the tips!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

:: {{re|Tea with toast}} I have now responded to all your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

::: {{re|Farang Rak Tham}} Great job with the edits. It's looking more polished now. Just need a source to support the sentence in the intro that this was something that was practiced back in 7th-10th century China. I'll pass the article once that is done. Tea with toast (話) 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

:::: That's already in the body of the text, {{u|Tea with toast}}. Under Eight precepts#History. It is therefore not required to put another citation in the lead. Unless you think it is controversial, that is.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

::::: {{u|Tea with toast}}, a friendly reminder.-Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

::::: I have notified the reviewer on his user page, and given him a deadline. He has not responded. Archiving and renominating.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}