Talk:Wat Paknam Bhasicharoen/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) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

General

• Not necessary for GA, but you may want to change "mae chi" to "maechi" to conform to the other articles.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre-modern times (fifteenth century–1915)

• Wat Paknam simply means 'lock in canal': I was surprised to see this, since I gather "wat" means "temple"; does "Wat Paknam" really translate to a phrase that does not include "temple"?

No, it doesn't. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• The pre-1915 history is very short. Are there really no further sources that could be used? I see from the subsequent section that it was quite a minor temple, so perhaps that explains it.

Well, I have used almost every source i could scrape from the online clippings, except for very old newspapers. More detail would require me going there. That's an expensive ticket, lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Revival by Luang Pu Sodh (1916–59)

• a temple with only thirteen monks that was abandoned: "abandoned" implies there was nobody there at all. Perhaps "little used"?

In disrepair. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Although Luang Pu Sodh has already passed away, his remains have been kept in a coffin: we don't need "although", and it's best not to use euphemisms. How about "Luang Pu Sodh died in 1959, and his body has been kept in a coffin"?

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Somdet Chuang Varapuñño as abbot (1960–2013)

• no successors were appointed, which led to discussion: vague.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I was surprised to see that there's no separate article for Somdet Chuang Varapuñño. Quite a bit of the material in the article is about him, rather than the temple, though I can see they're intertwined. Should the article perhaps be split?

Possible, but most content would be the same, and all English-language sources deal mostly with the temple rather than Somdet Chuang. So you would end up with an article with hardly any English source. That is allowed, of course, but not ideal. In the Thai Wikipedia, the two are separated, but the article about Somdet Chuang reads like a sort of resume.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added an inter-language link at the first instance of his name.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Somdet Chuang used to be monastic Chief of Region 3, 17 and 7, respectively: is there a possible link to something that explains what these regions are?

I'll have to search for that.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Just in Thai probably. Added.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Wat Paknam was displeased by the report and had Phra Adisak leave Wat Paknam, but he did not comply: seems odd; he continued to live there, or to be a member? They had no power to force him to leave in either case?

Incompletely summarized. Rewritten now.

• of embezzlement and other accusations: you can't be accused of an accusation. Perhaps "of embezzlement and other crimes"?

Fixed.

• which was one of 6000–7000 cars sold: I don't follow this.

Explained.

• The car under investigation was an eighty-old year wreck that had been fixed by adding new parts to it, before offering it to the museum: this sounds like a defense of the temple; it should be attributed to the source, rather than stated in Wikipdia's voice, unless we are sure it's a statement of facts which is not disputed by anyone. The word "wreck" is not neutral in this context.

Attributed and rephrased.

Practices and propagation

• The temple does, however, not only try to appeal to mae chis, but follows a general policy with regard to 'suitability': I'm not sure what "appeal" means here; I think it refers to the temple's ability to attract maechis. If so I don't think it's needed; that much is already evident to the reader. Perhaps just "The temple's policy is to make itself 'suitable' (Pali: sappaya), meaning that it attempts to be attractive...".

Good! Done.

• has acted resolutely: not neutral language.

Fixed.

• he taught her to be patient and enduring: "taught" implies she successfully learned this from him; I think a verb such as "recommended" would be more neutral.

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The fixes all look good to me. Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 7 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.