Talk:Lynn de Silva/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to whether it is GA quality.

Thanks a lot for your help in improving this article! Ldesilva (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is ok, not great but passable

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I feel the article meets GA Criteria and will happily pass. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

See WP:Lead. There are a couple of issues with the lead, one being that it isn't usually necessary to cite too much in the lead as it is assumed these citations will come up in the body of the article. 30+ citations in the lead isn't necessary. Also a string of 14 in-line citations after one sentence is a bit much. Please explain this or condense them.

Agreed. This was also pointed out by some other readers. Fixed. Ldesilva (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said there are several instances where the term, "Lynn de Silva is considered...". This term, "is considered" is identified in Wikipedia as weasel words, see WP:Weasel. Having a stack of references to back up the term doesn't excuse using it. Please think about rewording these sentences.

I think I've fixed this now. Ldesilva (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is also supposed to be a summary of the entire article, bringing up all of the major points of the article. I don't see anything about his education, early life, death, or his honors. Please ensure the lead encompasses every aspect of the article in about three paragraphs.

Done. Ldesilva (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The info box has no citations.

The infobox is just a summary of things that I've mentioned elsewhere in the article, so the citations can be found elsewhere. However, I've added a notes section into the infobox with citations for some of the names. Ldesilva (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Family, Education, and Career

On a quick run through of this section I don't see much to comment on. I'll continue with the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Ldesilva (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Buddhist-Christian relations

I like the brief history here, I wouldn't add too much more to it or the article will start to lose focus. It is helpful for the reader to get an idea of what came before de Silva so that they know he did not appear in a vacuum.
Watch the tense in the Ecuminical Institute for Study and Dialogue sub-section. The section switches from past and present tense almost from one sentence to the next. This should be fixed.

Fixed. Ldesilva (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the World Council of Churches assembly sub section there is this phrase, "de Silva provided the weightiest and theologically most influential contributions;". Be careful here, this assertion is opinion and biased. The context of the paragraph is a debate between European, African, and Asian theologians. I would hazard to guess that the European theologians did not consider his arguments the most theologically influential. Watch POV comments here and throughout the article.

I'm still getting the hang of POV stuff, but I think I've fixed this problem for this section (please double check). Ldesilva (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The summary of his speech in Nairobi is all present tense, this should be changed to past tense. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ldesilva (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death and honors

The death section is ok.
The honors section is two one-sentence paragraphs, this should be combined and if possible expanded.

Done (merged) Ldesilva (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asian theology

I added a ^[who?] template to another example of weasel wording.

I think I've fixed all occurrences of such wording. Ldesilva (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...de Silva released his most outstanding contribution to Theology,..." Another POV statement.

Fixed. Ldesilva (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition of critiques of de Silva's theology in the Anattā-Pneuma subsection. I think more of this is needed in the article. H1nkles (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With a much shorter section on his theology now (see below) I think the critiques balance well with the rest of the text. Ldesilva (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found more examples of tense problems such as, "Lynn de Silva shares John Hick's view that although different religions use different concepts such as God and Buddha...". Since de Silva is dead this should be past tense.

Fixed. Ldesilva (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about de Silva's writings I don't always use past tense, though. E.g., "In this paper, de Silva talks about ... and writes that ... He urges that ..." I think this is fine? Ldesilva (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about the heavy weight the article puts on his theology and beliefs. In a biography about a person a section of the article can be attributed to his/her beliefs and stand points. But the article is supposed to be about the person's life and the focus should be there rather than primarily on their theologies. I use as examples current GAs, Billy Sunday, and Meher Baba. These are articles about religious figures that have passed GA. A portion of the article is about their theology and world view but most of the content is devoted to their life. As I see this article it is weighted too heavily on de Silva's theology. Perhaps a summary of his theology could be here and a new article about de Silva's theology could be created.

I've cut down on this section quite a bit and referred to the dedicated article about his work like you suggested. The critiques of de Silva's theology now stand out a bit better I think. I couldn't find any more cite-able critiques of his work than the ones I've included in the article. Ldesilva (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that although this (cut down) section is about his Theology, it still does give some good insights into his beliefs and life (e.g., the first two paragraphs of the section and the section on Thanatology). Ldesilva (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positions and ecumenical activities and following sections of lists

The last sections of this article are a series of lists. See WP:Embedded list for information on the use of lists in articles. Consider moving the lists of his works to an external links section. See Meher Baba as an example.
Per WP:List a list must comply with all the requirements of prose sections. Make sure every list is referenced.
I don't really see what the Dialogue Journal lists add to the article. They appear to be a list of editorials and article edits but they aren't necessarily papers authored by de Silva. What does this do to contribute to the information about de Silva?

Thanks! I've removed most of the lists and kept only his important publications (books), the books about him, i.e., where he is the subject, and a few publications to which I refer in the article. Actually, I've moved a lot of the old material into a new Wikipedia article dedicated to his work, which I still need to work on. (The dialogue journal publications/edits may or may not belong in that new article; I don't think we need to worry about that for now.) Ldesilva (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

The formatting of your references looks good, links are solid and those I can't check are taken on good faith.
I'm not really sure what ref 6 is supposed to add, please explain its purpose.

One of the reasons is to address Wikipedia's "notability" criteria. The main reason, however, is because over a year ago some reviewers (who are experts in the field, but not Wikipedians) suggested that I add a detailed footnote to show somewhat convincingly that de Silva was indeed regarded as one of the foremost practitioners of Buddhist-Christian dialogue in Sri Lanka and in the world. Since it is only a footnote, it does not distract the reader, but more importantly, I think it is better than simply citing to two or three publications. (Note that most of the publications I refer to in this footnote do not appear elsewhere in the article.) Ldesilva (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in citations and what should/shouldn't be in citations. I know that lengthy notes are frowned upon, as are long strings of in-line citations. A balance must be struck. I would also say that information in footnotes should comply with WP standards for inclusion. The reference seems to say everything that's spectacular about de Silva's contribution without putting it into the article. Why is it not in the main body of the article? Because it would unduly weight the article in favor of de Silva (is this a fair assumption or am I off base?). But putting it in a footnote doesn't really solve the problem. Personally I feel that the article does satisfy notability criteria without the reference. I also feel that the article positions de Silva in a favorable light without the reference. If you would like to add some of the journals and publications as in-line citations elsewhere to support the credibility of the article that is fine but I feel that the note as it currently stands is inappropriate from a POV stand point. I certainly welcome dialogue on this point. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote is to support the associated sentence, which states that he is widely regarded as one of the pioneers of Buddhist-Christian dialogue. The footnote has credible references to show that he is indeed considered as such, by some established people in the field. If I include only a few references in the footnote then that would just count as a few opinions. However, I do think that there is a problem with this footnote in that it is way too long. Should I cut down on the size by removing all the quotations in it, and just leaving the citations with some basic text? Ldesilva (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an appropriate course of action. Leave me a note on my talk page when you're done and I'll have a final look at the article. Thanks and well done. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at the bottom. Ldesilva (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Overall I think the article has some strong points, there is an attempt at balance though I think more could be done in that regard. The images are good, the quotes are topical and the references are sound. There is a lot that needs to be done as well. One concern from a comprehensive stand point is, what criticism did de Silva face? His views were certainly controversial, especially for an ordained minister of an evangelical Christian denomination. He must have encountered criticism from more mainstream evangelical theologians. I see very little about this in the article. Regarding prose there are several instances of tense problems these need to be fixed. The over-loading of the article with de Silva's theology shifts the focus of the article away from his life and towards his thought, which isn't to be the intent of a biography. The lead needs to be redone to meet MOS requirements. The embedded lists are too much and should be moved into external links or removed. Watch POV statements and weasel wording. The rest of my comments are above. I will put the article on hold pending work, please discuss these issues here and if you have questions or concerns please notify me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help! It has certainly helped improve the article! If I have missed out on something, I would greatly appreciate it if you could give me a day or two to fix it. Best regards, Ldesilva (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I judge from the comments that your work on the article is completed. So I'll review the article now to see if it meets GA Criteria, if there are issues I'll outline them and give you a chance to address them. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second review

The lead is better.
The referencing in the lead is much improved though again usually the lead requires very little referencing at all, even less than what you currently have. That said I won't hold back GA on that account, just something to keep in mind for future references.

Thanks, I will work on fixing this sometime in the future. Ldesilva (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've left only the references for statements that are not repeated later in the article (e.g. regarding the brothers). Ldesilva (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my browser this is a very large gap between the "Education" section title and the body of the text of the Education section. This is likely due to the length of the image and the info box. Can this be corrected? See WP:ACCESS for thoughts on page layout. Perhaps the image can be moved, the info box condensed or the family section expanded? I'm not sure what if anything can be done.

I've slightly condensed the infobox and moved that image to go under the infobox. I can't check on my machine whether this solved the problem because both versions display correctly on both my browsers (Safari and Firefox). Please let me know if it is now OK on your browser. Thanks, Ldesilva (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if it is a browser issue then don't worry about it. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned about the sentence raised in my previous review in the "World Council of Churches assembly in Nairobi" section, "De Alwis also states that de Silva and Joshua Russell Chandran from India provided the weightiest and theologically most influential contributions." I raised POV issues and I maintain that this statement is overly POV. Just because someone else states it does not mean it is neutral and warrants inclusion in the article. On its own I wouldn't raise the issue but the article is very favorable of the man, which is ok, he is obviously a major contributor to his field, but when the article is already painting him in a favorable light we must watch statements like this one carefully. I recommend removal. Especially since you have further positive statements about his contribution to this assembly in the next sentence.

Done. Please let me know if there are any other such statements. I'd be happy to remove them or reword them if it helps improve the article. Ldesilva (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is much improved. One issue that was nagging at the back of my mind and now has formulated into a coherent thought is about his view points and the push back he must have inevitably encountered among more conservative theologians. As I reread the article I am struck by the radical nature of his beliefs (eg. his incluvistic view of salvation. The only critique of his work is that it doesn't go far enough. That his view is not incluvistic enough. From a conservative Christian perspective his views would be too incluvistic and heretical). His writings must have produced controversy. There is a little mentioned in the Nairobi assembly section but I'm wondering if more was actually written in response to his theology? As a reviewer I would be remiss if I did not ask for this to satisfy questions of comprehensiveness and POV. I welcome discussion on this point. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing this article I did extensive research to find as many publications about his work as possible, and over the many months I was given a wealth of information from people who are experts in the field and much more knowledgeable on the subject. From this information I picked the "best" critiques of his work (those from established theologians/citable sources). I will see in the next day or two if I have missed out on any critiques, and if I can find any from the more conservative theologians. Ldesilva (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I appreciate your thoroughness. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 19:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have summarised some of the appropriate evangelical/conservative viewpoints I found in the Anatta-Pneuma subsection. The viewpoints are, I think, most related to the content in this subsection. I found a few more but these are the strongest. If all this new text is making the theology section too long again, I think the salvation subsection can be deleted entirely. Ldesilva (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my thoughts on the long reference in the "References" section of this review. User:H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down on the length of this footnote to about one third of its previous length. (In addition to removing all the quotations that previously appeared in this footnote, I've also removed some of the not-so-important citations.) Ldesilva (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass to GA

After a lengthy review I feel as though the article meets the current GA Criteria and I will happily pass it. Congratulations and keep up the good work. H1nkles _{citius altius fortius} 16:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]