Talk:Rishabhanatha/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ThatGirlTayler (talk · contribs) 00:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article to ensure that it meets the GA guidelines. ThatGirlTayler (talk)

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: Article is written in a way that readers would need special inside knowledge to understand. It seems like it isn't written with everyday readers in mind. Such as: This cycle will start reversing at the onset of utsarpinī kāl with the Dukhama-dukhamā ara being the first ara of utsarpinī (half-time cycle of regeneration). The chronology bit about Jainism and Rishabhanatha is also pretty vague and needs to be changed. Thanks, BlueMoonset for your input. Final sentence needs to be fixed, pick an actual number instead of saying "thousands of years"{GAList/check|{{{1a}}}}}

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Sections are too brief and should be lengthened to match GA guidelines. Numbering of lists is too inconsistent, pick one numbering system. Also, the use of invalid dashes needs to be fixed there is no such thing as "nine-thousand" it should just be "nine thousand".
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Yes

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: Yes

C. It contains no original research: Yes

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: all text including images match copyright guidelines.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: I would like to see more with Buddhism and Rishabhantha outside of Jainism, but overrall pretty good.

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

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: All images have captions and fit within the scope of the article, if anything there are too many pictures.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: pass. All edits to article within the last week have improved the article greatly and have brought it up to GA-quality. Congratulations, Capankajsmilyo

Thanks for starting the GA ThatGirlTayler, I have addressed all the issues raised by you. Please have a relook. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Capankajsmilyo: I would just like some clarification, first. What is a half cycle of present time? Is it 500 years? 1000 years? Etc. I just think it would be confusing to the reader if they do not know what a "half cycle" is.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That can't be measured in years. Sagaropam is the unit used for its calculation. Further details on this topic has been wikilink in the article via Jain cosmology. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from others

I don't see how the article meets the guideline for lead sections. In particular, this does not summarize all of the main sections of the body of the article, and is quite brief. While the guideline does indicate one to two paragraphs for an article of this length, what is here is extremely short; there needs to be more content.

A GA review needs to be more specific: if there are grammar and sentence structure issues, the reviewer needs to give at least some examples of the issues found.

When I read the article, I find some of the text to be extremely opaque, and to me it seems to be written for a specialist or believer rather than an everyday reader. One sentence that epitomizes this is This cycle will start reversing at the onset of utsarpinī kāl with the Dukhama-dukhamā ara being the first ara of utsarpinī (half-time cycle of regeneration). As one of the GA criteria is that the prose is "clear and concise", this fails clarity by a wide margin. Later in that section is this: Jain chronology places the date of Rishabhanatha at an almost immeasurable antiquity in the past. This is extremely vague. Are we talking thousands of years? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? Billions? Trillions? More? The article needs to give the reader a true idea of this.

I was puzzled by the inconsistent use of numbers in words and digits at the beginning of entries in the Omniscience subsection's list. This should certainly be consistent when in a list—all digits, or all words; at present, many of the written-out numbers have invalid dashes in them (for example, nine-thousand). There's also something wrong with the final sentence's 1 lakh pūrva less thousand years; I'd suggest giving this as an actual number that a modern person can understand, since "lakh pūrva" has not been defined and is not wikilinked. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issues raised have been resolved. Please give it a look. Actual number can't be given since it would be more than 10^219. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have issues with the entire tone of the article. It blends mythology, such as enormous time scales, with a history of Rishabhanatha as if he were a real person who performed both ordinary and extraordinary deeds, and apparently never died . If he was the founder of Jainism, is there any evidence that he was a historical personage? Or is this entire article mythology? The word "myth" is not in the article. As a "god" of Jainism, the article should approach him with the same POV as other deities, i. e. "[this source] says", "in most traditions", "he is depicted as", "some scholars propose", etc. Contrast this with the tone of the article about Buddha, who clearly has mythology surrounding his life, yet was a historical person, and, for instance, the article about Indra, a deity. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Eric[reply]