Wikipedia:Peer review/Luang Por Dattajivo/archive1

Luang Por Dattajivo

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Hello fellow Wikpedians, I've listed this article for peer review because it has been greatly rewritten since it was last assessed. I also like to check it for writing and want to know if it is understandable for outsiders. I would appreciate it if it received a new quality assessment.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

I really don't understand what it meant by black magic in the Earl Life section, this is an ambiguous term and seems to be referring to a particular occult tradition; should be specified or more detail provided. Is there a possible wikilink to the tradition referred to?

I have wikilinked the Khatha article, Penultimate supper. It is a field I do not know much about, although I have found this source.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the discussion of his tests of Chaiyabun isn't particularly encyclopedic. Could be improved by clarifying who this narrative comes from and saying "According to ____'s description of the events:"

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the citations don't seem to contain reference to the sentence or have other issues

"In the 1960s and 1970s, a university degree in Thailand was a guarantee someone would get a good position in society, which made their decision to ordain instead stand out." and then this link is provided as the citation, which is broken and seems to link to a religious source rather than anything about the relative value of a degree in 60's-70's Thailand

As odd as it sounds, the source, linked here, is a newspaper section containing two opinion pieces, one from a Chulalongkorn University scholar and one from an unnamed journalist. Dokbia Thurakit was a liberal business newspaper, which went against the tide of most newspapers at the time and tried to defend the temple, and tried to downplay the true Buddhism–false Buddhism dichotomy that was prevalent at the time. The title of the source is quoting the temple's position that they're innocent, but the articles do not actually go so far as to take such opinion. If you think it is required, i can quote the statement made about the university degree.

With regard to the Matichon E-libary, this became a paid service with a paywall at the beginning of this year. This is why the article is a dead url now, but I have now linked it to the Matichon E-library main page instead.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the quote and a translation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of non-English sources, while allowed, opens the opportunity for challenges. Do English sources exist to back these up?

Where Thai sources have been quoted, English sources usually have been cited as well, if you notice. With the exception of the meaning of LP Dattajivo's monastic name and the part on the university degree. I could quote a Pali-English dictionary to back up the meaning of the monastic name though.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added the dictionary now, and following this source, slightly rephrased.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life as a deputy abbot

"A set of cassettes called the Thirty-Eight Blessings, based on the Mangala Sutta, was his first widely known work. These teachings became very popular in Thailand." Can you provide a source/external link?

This content was there before I started working on the article. I couldn't find a source that directly supports it, and have removed it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In Wat Phra Dhammakaya, he is the second most important person of the temple, and complements Luang Por Dhammajayo in many ways." Can you clarify how 'important' is meant? Spiritual importance, organization authority, fame?

Organizational authority. Specified.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, it's well organized and easy to understand. I'd love a bit more background on a few points, and there are occasional areas that are a bit unclear to read. Thanks for the opportunity to review. penultimate_supper (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Penultimate supper. That is all good advice. I'll try to apply it as much as i can.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied all your suggestions now, Penultimate supper, but there are a some questions remaining above. Let me know your response, and if you have any more tips or suggestions, please let me know.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job improving the article. I don't think the Thai sources are a cause for concern, I was just noting them. I think all your improvements make sense and it is a great article! penultimate_supper (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Penultimate supper. Any more tips? I am trying to upgrade the article to B-level.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this peer review. Thanks for the tips. If anyone would care to reassess the quality of the article on its talk page, this would be appreciated.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]