Wikipedia:Peer review/Jainism/archive4

Jainism

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because considerable changes are made in this article in the past few months. This article has failed three Featured Article nominations. I request opinions and contributions of more editors before the next nomination. I hope the article becomes perfectly ready for being a Featured Article following this peer review. Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see many of my comments from last PR are not fully implemented. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed out a few comments. I have corrected it now. Apart from naming convention, I think others are good as of current. As for the naming convention, MOS:FOREIGN says to use common names. Systematic transliteration (IAST in this case) should be used if the common name does not exists. Rahul Jain (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's Namokar Mantra and not Navkar Mantra.
The paragraph on Muslim oppression on Jains in the Decline section should be bigger.
There is no information about the minority status of Jains in some states on India.
Images need Alt text.
The article can have some information about disputes between Jain sects. For example, the one regarding Shikharji.
Information should be there about Jainism symbols and flag.
Jains are known for their contribution to Indian economy. The article should have something about that.
Add a comma between "Mahāvīra Jayanti" and "the birthday of Mahāvīra."
Although there is hardly any Jain Politics, but Jains are also counted as a part of Hindutva. You can add 1-2 lines about that.
Jainism is also considered as a nastik sect of Hinduism. That should be mentioned in detail.

To be a FA, the article needs to expanded a lot. It is a good article but I will like to see a complete account of Jainism. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Jainism to be able to say whether the article is superficially detailed enough (per the last sentence of the previous comment). However, I would note:

You must not "hide dirty laundry". If there are political disputes, intramural or extramural, that need to be included, you must include them.
Do include information on oppression by other groups—but be careful to do so in a neutrally-toned way.
You must add something on symbols and flag. Do keep in mind that the swastika is widely recognized by many readers of this wiki in a different context. That symbol is heavily charged with emotion and meaning in that context. So, whether fair or not in this setting, you have to describe a little bit why it's ok here.

StevenJ81 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

This article is the main article of various topics covered under Jainism. Considering that, this article should reflect all these article in a manner. Its not feasible to add every bit of all and is also not wanted. But many blue links to various articles should be present here. If not, they should at least be available through templates placed at the bottom. Its kinda odd to say that something is missing in the template and that's why this article is lacking; but that's how it is going to be. If links like Jain vegetarianism is not present in the template, one would expect it to be present in the article. But in article its kinda overdue and hence you have to work on other aspects outside this article also.
Various portals of Jainism, Religion, etc. should be linked at the bottom.
Interwiki links to various projects like Commons, should be added.
Not very important comment, but there are photographs of people and statues. Why not include or replace one with a painting? Lets give some variety.
Also, the captions are very mediocre. For example instead of "Sadhvis meditating", something about importance of meditation can be stated.
Is monasticism a very common word that no wikilink is found necessary? It isn't to me, but my vocab is poor.

Will come up with more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John Carter

First, I want to say how happy I am that the central article on any religious faith is getting this much attention and work. I do however have a few questions and comments. I also want to make it clear that, personally, this is a subject I really may not know that much about, so if I say something which looks incredibly stupid here, it probably is just that.

1) Looking at the lead of the Jainism article in the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I see its lead, which is only three paragraphs in length, describes the etymology of the name Jainism, and describes the religion as being based on the teachings of the jina. I tend to think this should probably be included in our lead as well.

2) Lead sections are easily allowed to run to five paragraphs in length. I have a feeling that an article dealing with this large a subject could easily benefit from having all five paragraphs in the lead, to allow for more thorough summary. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, having the first paragraph as a general identifier of the group, followed by individual paragraphs on beliefs, history, practices, and a final catch-all for other material relevant to the lead might be one way to go.

3) Considering that this is fundamentally a religion, I question having the first section be about "History" rather than beliefs or something more directly relevant to a religion. Maybe it might make sense to put either "Origins" (covering the historical origins and early beliefs) first. Maybe. It would help a lot if there were a clear religion MOS here, but there isn't yet.

4) I also have to question the placement of the first paragraph of the religion section, which seems to me anyway to be effectively somewhat belittling Jainism in a way. While it might be useful to have such content somewhere in the article, I would myself prefer to see at the beginning a description of the group itself, rather than an indicator of its relationships to other groups. Having said that, a section on "Jainism and other religions" would certainly be useful and welcome.

5) Having only one subsection of "History," on the decline, looks awkward. I can see maybe adding at least two more designated subsections, maybe, on "Origins" or "Early history" (if not covered separately first), and "Development".

6) In the West, the word "sect" is often a synonym for the perjorative "Cult," and I have reservations about using it here. Maybe "schools", "denominations," or some similar word could be used instead?

7) As a possible restructuring, which to my eyes anyway might make more sense, something like "Origins," "Scriptures," "Beliefs," "History," "Practices," and on might be a bit more natural structure for an article on a religious group. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]