Talk:Ānanda/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement
In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use ✅,, , ❌, , or , followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. — ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Now, some disclaimers for record keeping. I am not as familiar with Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism, as I would like to be, so I may miss holes in content. I do not think there will be, based on prior experience with the Nominator, Farang Rak Tham. Finally, this review is conducted in response to a request on my talk page to clear the GAN:REL backlog. — ♠Vami _IV†♠  05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead
I would normally save this section for last, but I want to note that the lead is written in a past tense I would not called "encyclopedic". For example: Ānanda dies 20 years after the Buddha, and stūpas (monuments) are erected at the river where he dies.
 * I was trying to follow MOS:INUNIVERSE, i.e. avoiding an in-universe perspective. I admit it appears clumsy at times. Do you suggest to switch to past tense entirely? Will I not be violating MOS:INUNIVERSE then?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "In-universe" would imply Ānanda is a fictional character, and I have not yet seen evidence of his being a fictional character. Besides, I don't think Buddhists would agree Ānanda is fictional. Refer to MOS:TENSE: Generally, do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  20:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I wondered about that for a while. For someone that knowledgeable, you manage to hide it pretty well: when I did a GA review of your article, I thought you were a newcomer to Wikipedia, because you never went against any advice. (That's meant as a compliment.)-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Man, it's a lot.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that I know nothing. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  22:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅, phew! -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 00:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Name

 * his relatives are joyous about this were.
 * See above.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * and he therefore is named that way Redundant.
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Accounts

 * the present time [...] the present lifetime I know "present" is subjective here, but the 4th-5th century BC is a really long time ago.
 * Lol, .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * after which he attended the Buddha for another twenty-five years. Attended to the Buddha?
 * a number of instances.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * suggesting that the Buddha better accepted the robe. Edit scar?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The section "Historicity" is irrelevant to this article.
 * It pertains to whether Ānanda really was a reciter during the First Council, for which he is mostly known throughout the world.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * ability to remember many teachings of the Buddha Is this supposed to be "the many teachings of the Buddha"?
 * Fixed.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

 * In conclusion, Ānanda has been one of the most loved figures in Buddhism. Although he was not as wise as some of the other main disciples, he was beloved because of his devotion to the Buddha and sincere efforts to understand and disseminate the Buddha's teachings.[2] I contend this passage is redundant; this is not an essay.
 * It does seem redundant. .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In art

 * Drawing from Schopenhauer's philosophy, Wagner contrasts desire-driven salvation and true spiritual salvation: by seeking deliverance through the person she loves, Prakṛti only affirms her will to live (German: Wille zum Leben), which is blocking her from attaining deliverance. By being ordained as a bhikkhunī she strives for her spiritual salvation instead. Thus, the early Buddhist account of Mahāpajāpati's ordination is replaced by that of Prakṛti. According to Wagner, by allowing Prakṛti to become ordained, the Buddha also completes his own aim in life: "[H]e regards his existence in the world, whose aim was to benefit all beings, as completed, since he had become able to offer deliverance—without mediation—also to woman."[204] Ditto.
 * Do you refer to its relevance? Because WP:NOTESSAY is mostly about avoiding OR.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I was about to delete this because of lack of relevance, but I'm in doubt. The ending quote does explain the importance of female ordination. Though in this opera it would have been the Buddha ordaining Prakriti, the early texts say Ananda pushed this initiative. So in a way, the ending quote pertains to the importance of Ananda  having accomplished female ordination. Am i reaching here?--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 00:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this, I think it belongs now. I'll retract this bulletpoint. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Although Prakṛti at first cries of misery Missed this the first time I read this section.
 * You'd like me to use the past tense, right?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the tense wasn't the issue, the reading was. I'd more naturally read something like "At first, Prakrti wept in dismay". I apologize for any confusion. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * . No worries. Common usage is not really my forte, as my user page says.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)