Wikipedia:Peer review/Jainism/archive2

Jainism

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I want a peer review of this article before nominating it for next featured article. It has been improved upon significantly and meets the featured article criteria. The previous nomination of this article for FAC criteria didn't recieved much responce. I want to know concerns of editors and hope that the article will get more support in the next nomination.

Thanks, Rahul Jain (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Jojalozzo

I strongly recommend this article NOT be submitted for FAR again until it passes GAR. I do not think it is very near FA quality and we are likely to get more comments and help if we are not overreaching. It only takes a couple of minutes to find enough problems to fail FAR and fixing those few problems doesn't mean we'll have fixed everything that's not up to snuff for FA. On the other hand, a GAR would probably be more thorough and be of greater benefit for the article.

I suggest viewing the GAR and FAR review process as a way to improve the article rather than as a form of external validation.

Generally, this is an intermediate quality article. A lot of the problems I encountered are minor but numerous and in total they prevent it from earning a higher rating.

History

1. I prefer History as the first section after the introduction. That helps introduce people and organizations before they are discussed in relation to principles and doctrine.
2. However, even the history section jumps around a bit and does not present a clear historical perspective. I suggest someone start with an outline, following the historical time sequence, and revise that section based on that.
3. Names of people and places are used without explaining who or where they are and what is significant about them.
4. Events and people are mentioned without dating them:
   • Sundara
   • Muslims conquering India (Mogul period)
   • Indus Valley Civilisation
   • Pir Mahabir Khamdayat
   • Emperor Akbar
   • Etcetera

First, let's address these issues and then we can revisit this section for more detailed review.

However, I can't help but comment:

1. "Chandragupta, became a Jain in the latter part of his life. He was a disciple of Badhrabahu, a Jain acarya who was responsible for propagation of jaina faith in south India." This was the only time Jainism was propagated in South India, so Badhrabahugets credit for any and all propagation there?
2. "Once a major religion of India, Jainism began to decline." When was it a major religion and when did it begin to decline??

Core principles

1. I cannot find mention of "Parshva, the earliest Jain tirthankara now known to be a historical figure," in the source (Dundas 2002). Claims of historicity have the taint of POV, so must be well sourced. This question is addressed somewhat in the History section and is probably unnecessary in the core doctrine section.

Doctrines

1. adhgajanyāyahis is undefined.

Community

1. The content on sects (Digambara and Svetambara), i.e. everything after the first two paragraphs, should be moved into History section.

Art and architecture

1. "statue of Bahubali ... is situated 18 m above a hilltop". This sounds like it's floating in air. I think 18m is the height of the statue, is it not?

Meditation and monasticism

1. Break this into two sections.They are very different topics.
2. Nowhere does the article say that there are no priests in Jainism. I think this is a significant omission.

General

1. Edit from a non-Hindi reader's perspective. Make sure every non-English term is defined and if it is used a second time be sure to define it before that second usage. For example, see undefined usage of baladeva, vāsudeva and prativāsudeva in Prominent figures section. (I do not have time to find all the instances of this but there are many. I hope someone will make the effort to check every Hindi term and correct these significant flaws.)
2. Do not put wikilinks in quoted text.
3. Use consistent terminology (e.g. Parshva or Parshvanath, not both).
4. Do not duplicate wikilinks. Autowikibrowser will find the duplicates and help you remove them. Don't address this issue until after any reordering since we want the first instance of a linked term to be the one with the link.

Jojalozzo 01:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review and the edits. I am trying my best to make the required changes. As you can see, I have moved the history section to be the first section after the lead. The history of Jainism would itself make up a good long article, so only the major events are mentioned in this one. I have mentioned the details and/or time of the people mentioned in the history section. The IAST Pārśva seems appropriate, so I have changed all the references to 23rd tirthankara to Pārśva for consistency. I think only the history section needs to be worked upon now, or have I missed something in other sections? Rahul Jain (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll make another more careful pass and run Autowikibrowser for duplicate links, but it's looking much better now. Nice work. Jojalozzo 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how the history section can be further improved. Also, what's your opinion on the rest of the article (i.e. except history section)? Rahul Jain (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll review it in the next few days. Jojalozzo 19:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I made a copy edit pass, especially in the history section. The only issue I could not resolve is the time period that applies to the statement: "Kalinga was home to Jains in the past." What span of time is covered by this statement?

Otherwise, I recommend asking for a Good Article review. I want to reiterate that it is both prudent and beneficial to use the standard process of obtaining Good Article status before Featured Article. The feedback we get in GA review will be helpful in bringing the article nearer to FA quality. Skipping GA review means missing a significant opportunity for constructive criticism. The more eyes we can get on the article the better it will be. Jojalozzo 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is citation really required for pronounciation of the word Jainism? Rahul Jain (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Midnightblueowl

I second the comments expressed by Jojalozzo that this should go to GA review before FA. It will probably pass the former, but not the latter at this current stage. One thing in particular that strikes me is the introduction; it does not sufficiently summarise the rest of the article. Still, a lot of good work has gone into this, and those responsible should be congratulated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)