Talk:Maudgalyayana/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

General

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

Looks like good edits!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is a bit short for the article; it should be at least three paragraphs.

Fixing. I'll be back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why say "Sakyamuni Buddha" in the lead? A reader who is non knowledgeable about Buddhism will assume this is somehow different from "Buddha" -- a different aspect, perhaps. Do we need this?

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not required for GA, but [1] is a dead link.

 Fixed, found updated link.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "merit" to merit (Buddhism).: Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Heritage

• Footnote 119 links to Daily Mirror, but as far as I can tell the cited website is an unrelated news site.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Meeting the Buddha

• which is considered an ancient element: an element of what? Of the texts?

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• who is walking to receive alms: what does this mean?

Wikilinked. Will this suffice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• You give the name change, but then refer to the two as Upatiṣya and Kolita again.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• At that time, drowsiness is obstructing him from attaining.: missing word?

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Aśvajit's brief statement...: this discussion seems to come out of nowhere; it's not until most of the way through the paragraph that we see a connection to Maudgalyāyana. I think the connection should be apparent in the first sentence of the paragraph. As it stands the first sentence implies the "brief statement" has already been mentioned; making it "A brief statement by Aśvajit, known as ..." would fix that. And I think some attempt has to be made to explain what it says, though it sounds as if that will be difficult.

Not sure if this still needs fixing, since it seems to have been fixed already. I tweaked it a bit by adding the first words in English.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana

• in all Buddhist canons, Maudgalyāyana and Śāriputra are recognized as the two main virtuous disciples. This fact is also confirmed by archaeological findings: sounds a bit odd, as if we were saying that archaeological findings confirm they were the two main virtuous disciples. I assume what's meant is that archaeological findings confirm that they have been recognized as such. It's hard to prove a negative ("no others have been thus recognized in the past") so I'm a bit sceptical of the definite phrasing here. What does the source say?

 Fixed. Will this suffice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The caption The Buddha gave Maudgalyāyana the responsibility to train Rahula, the Buddha's son doesn't tell us who is who in the picture.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing review

Making the Udāyana image

• that the Buddha's paid a visit to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven: shouldn't this be "Buddha", not "Buddha's"? And if this is present tense, it should be "Buddha pays".

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• It could also be they originate from a common narrative: I don't know what this is trying to convey.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Death

• The account of his death switches between present and past tense. You use present tense for most of the account of his life, but I think it would be OK if you want to switch to past tense for his death, though present would work too. Either way it needs to be consistent.

 Fixed, i think.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maudgalyāyana often teaches about the visits...: this and the following sentence are in present tense, which is awkward because they're in the past with respect to the account of his death. If you decide to use past tense for his death, this needs to be past perfect: "had often taught"; if you go with historic present, then it's less obvious but I think past perfect is still right, since the tense relationship is the same.

Is this okay now?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Relics

• which resulted in controversy and a struggle for power: vague. If this is a reference to the following paragraph, I'd just cut it; no need to foreshadow.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What's left

Almost everything is fixed. "Walking for alms" doesn't seem natural English phrasing to me, but this is GAN, not FAC, so it can stay.

Tweaked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one point left to address:

• "confirmed by archaeological findings": still seems wrong. How can archaeology confirm something like this? Can you tell me what the source says?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This source is French. On page 416 it says:

III. LES SOURCES ARCHÉOLOGIQUES

L'Iconographie de Sâriputra

Elle nous apporte peu de renseignements de valeur et se contente de confirmer la position prééminente des deux disciples-chefs.

This translates as

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES

The Iconography of Sariputra

It brings us little valuable information and just confirms the pre-eminent position of the two chief disciples.

Migot simply takes this as a given. Archaeological findings refers to reliefs or statues showing the two main disciples accompanying the Buddha, standing by his side or otherwise attending him. Or as Migot explains on the next page, in a section on Tibetan iconography: Les images de Sâriputra y sont fréquentes ; il figure généralement comme assistant du Buddha, en compagnie de Maudgalyâyana, mais rien ne permet de les distinguer., or in English The images of Sariputra are frequent; he usually figures as an assistant of the Buddha, in the company of Maudgalyâyana, but there is nothing to distinguish them.

I have now rephrased the sentence.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That does it for me; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mike!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.