Talk:Dhammakaya tradition/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) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

General

• [1] is a dead link.

That one was archived.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's a harv warning on Swearer 2010 -- no link pointing to the citation.

  You mean the source is redundant?  Removed You have to teach me sometimes how you spot those.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  It's the script I mentioned a couple of reviews back -- if you install it, it pops up harv error messages in the source list and footnotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I installed it, and it while it does show error messages, it does not tell which sources are not used in the article's text.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not a problem for GA, but there seems no reason to have just one citation in the lead.

  I belief that is actually part of GA criteria.  Removed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  Struck; is it actually in the criteria? Where do you see it? I've always thought this was optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:GACR refers to MOS:LEAD, and MOS:LEADCITE is part of that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

History

• The sequence of some of the sentences in the "History" section seems backwards, giving the lineage from today back to Luang Pu Sodh. Wouldn't it make more sense, and be more readable, if this were in chronological order?

I am not sure I can follow. You mean the part on Yogavacara? That is a pre-modern tradition which precedes Luang Pu Sodh Candasaro.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand what you mean now.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• When Luang Pu Sodh was given his first position as abbot at Wat Paknam, Dhammakaya meditation has been associated with this temple ever since: "has been" is the wrong tense for "when". Suggest "Dhammakaya meditation has been associated with Wat Paknam since Luang Pu Sodh was given his first position as abbot there".

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Notable Temples

• but it has also been noted that the relation with Somdet Chuang Varapuñño and Wat Phra Dhammakaya has been good: the reader doesn't know at this point who Somdet Chuang Varapuñño is, and why would we expect him not to have a good relationship with Wat Phra Dhammakayo.

 Removed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• In fact the rest of the paragraph seems odd -- why is it notable that the two abbots were close friends? The only mention of problems is "even some dissension", but no details are given and that phrasing implies that the differences were minor. The position of this paragraph implies it's an introduction to the temples, but it seems to be more of a discussion of the nature of the movement and the relationship between the overall movement and the individual temples.

 Fixed Made a new section.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Currently" should have an "as of" date.

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• The summary of Wat Phra Dhammakaya should be updated with Luang Por Dhammajayo' s current status and the new abbot's name...

   Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  This seems to not be done? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Hold on.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• ...(which should also be in the lead of the temple article, I would think).

 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• You have both "Wat Rajorasaram" and "Wat Rajorasarama"; presumably they should be consistent.

 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Rama III's renovations of Wat Chomthong were completed in 1831; Rama II died in 1824 but you say he renamed the temple after the renovations were completed.

I misinterpreted the article.  Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• The details about Luang Por Thongdi seem rather undue weight for this article; do they really have anything to do with the movement itself? The change in the status of an abbot in the movement is obviously relevant, but why is it relevant to the movement to quote Thaksin's opinion, or say how many copies of his book were distributed, or give his opinion on the education level of monks?

  This will take some more time. I will be back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

   Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  I see you've removed the points I commented on, but what's the justification for the whole paragraph? What does it have to do with the Dhammakaya Movement? It could be included in an article about Luang Por Thongdi, or about the council, but why here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, like you said above, The change in the status of an abbot in the movement is obviously relevant. Luang Por Tongdi was trained in Wat Paknam, and is considered part of the same tradition. That's why the protests were held. I'll try to think about your comment for a while, and see how the link with the tradition can be clarified.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• partly in response to Wat Phra Dhammakaya: in what sense was it a response? Were they trying to gain popularity as Wat Phra Dhammakaya was doing, or was it oppositional?

Oppositional.  Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Apart from an Uposatha hall: is there a possible link for "Uposatha hall"?

 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• As of 2014, the stupa was expected to be finished in two years: can we get an update?

No update yet. Couldn't find any source in Thai or English on Google News about this topic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Features

• has specifically stated not to want to start a new fraternity: a bit clumsy; how about "has specifically said that they do not want to start a new fraternity".

 Done--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• the biography by Wat Phra Dhammakaya: a temple can't write a book; should this be "published by"? Or can we include the name of the author?

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• He did, however, often heal people through meditation: we can't say he definitely healed them in this way in Wikipedia's voice; this must be attributed.

 Fixed It is attributed in the sentence preceding it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• As of 2007, there was not yet enough evidence to draw any conclusions about the relation between Yogavacara and Dhammakaya: this might be better attributed to the scholar who asserts it.

 Fixed I replaced the entire section by a section from Dhammakaya meditation, which I believe is significantly better written.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Also, only the compounded and conditioned is not-self—not nirvana: I don't understand this.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• The article uses both "mae chi" and "maechi"; it should be consistent.

 Fixed per Talk:Maechi#Requested_move_24_April_2015.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Footer

• The fansite should be removed from the external links list, unless it is actually a reliable source by our definition.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Replaced by archived version of official website, now no longer online.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

13 February 2018

Mike Christie, thanks for helping to evaluate this article. I think it will require more work than any other article before this, but I will start with it this evening.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

16 February 2018

Awaiting further review.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 01:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one point remaining above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and promote; the paragraph about Luang Por Thongdi seems a bit too detailed for my taste, but it's a matter of judgement; the other point I raised has been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to make the paragraph more concise. Have done so now.

Meanwhile, any tips for a DYK entry, Mike Christie?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)17:57, 16 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.