This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Well-written. The prose is mostly engaging and provides excellent detail. The only real flaw is that the lede could be written more concisely. It seems a bit long for the article.
Factually accurate and verifiable. Everything seems well-sourced and follows sources well. The present flaw is that it needs a wider variety of sources. It is currently built from a very limited set of references. I would prefer to see a wider variety to ensure accuracy and neutral point of view. That is not to say the article is inaccurate or biased, but rather a greater pool of references helps to verify accuracy and neutrality.
Broad in coverage. This article certainly covers all the bases. However, I would like to see a bit more information about its place in history and impact on modern branches of Daoism. I would also like to see more information about Lingbao beliefs and systems of thought.
Neutral. For the most part, a very balanced presentation of the topic. Occasionally, it seems as though a bias or loaded description comes through. A good example is the beginning of rebirth section. It mentions that the borrowing of Buddhist ideas was "often clumsy and betrayed the Lingbao Daoists' poor understanding of Buddhism". This comes across as a bit polemic. It is not a pervasive problem, but we must be careful about such descriptions. It should be rephrased in a more neutral fashion or attributed as the opinion of a particular author or school of thought. If it is the dominant view of available references, it would be preferably mentioned as such and backed by multiple examples, or preferably a secondary source noting the dominant thought.
Stable. No problems here.
Images. The article could possibly use another image or two, but it's not needed. The images used are well-chosen and well-placed.
Summary: Pass. The article has room for improvement, but clearly fits the criteria of a good article. Despite the criticisms I raise, the current version of the article is well-structured and well-written, making it relatively easy to improve and expand. This article is informative and an excellent example of good writing. Good work! Vassyana 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
While the Lingbao School no longer exists as a distinct teaching, its influence on Daoism remains to the present day, most importantly in how it helped integrate Buddhist and Daoist practices together.
While the Lingbao School no longer exists as a distinct teaching, its influence on Daoism remains, most importantly in its help to combine Buddhist and Daoist practices.
I'm sure that the earlier version is awkward. I'm equally sure that the new version is wrong. Could some knowledgable person please fix this? Thanks. Morenoodles (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this. Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)