Talk:Buddhaghosa/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. This is an excellent article in my opinion. It is clearly written and well referenced. I injected named references, so that the references used repeatedly show up in one place and I reorganized the order of the sections to comply with WP:LAYOUT.

The only suggestion I have is that under "Critics" you might elaborate a little more on the quotation, alhough the quotation does sum up very well.
You could also consider making image smaller so that it does not overlap the section heading (as it does in my browser).

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, and particularly for your work in cleaning up the reference section. Regarding the image, if you could tell me which browser you're using, I'll see if I can fix the heading issue.

The criticism section is one that I was a little unsure about overall; first of all, I'm not sure that the monk who is quoted is really notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article. He writes a fair bit on the internet, but he's not, as far as I know, a big name in the popular or academic press. It looks like most of his work is done in Singapore, so it could be that I just don't know enough about him to judge. There really should be some response and analysis to his critique, but since no other author has commented on his works (again leading me to think that his criticism is not particularly notable), we can't really do so without running afoul of OR/POV concerns. Not sure what your feelings are on the issue. I'm going to post a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism and see if we can draw some feedback on the status of the writer in question. In the meantime, I will try to provide some explanation of what the author means by his criticism. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. I support the generally neutral tone of your article and the emphasis on scholarly sources. As fair as the image, my browser is Firefox 3.0.4 but it looks the same in my I.E. 7.0 also. Usually, the recommendation is to avoid setting pix size and use the default, although many people ignore this. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some context to the criticism and explained the rationale for the critique. Looks like Ninly already took care of the absolute sizing on the image. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty good article to me. Just a couple of points:

Use of Sanskrit forms like sutra & abhidharma is illogical in the context of the pali tradition.
Perhaps there should be more information on scholarly opinions on exactly which works he really did write. I think I put some in the Atthakatha article some time ago.

Peter jackson (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. I swapped out the Sanskrit terms that I could find and added the comment on authorship from the Atthakatha article. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Very nice work. Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]