Talk:Aṅgulimāla/GA1

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

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello,, I hope you do not mind if I review this article, since you have already reviewed so many of mine.
 * Didn't I ask you myself? Very much appreciated! -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Initial review

 * 1) Well written? Yes. Will analyze in much greater detail below in the coming days.
 * 2) Verifiable? Everything is
 * 3) Broad in coverage? Seems to be. Will discuss more later.
 * 4) Neutral? As far as I can tell from the initial readthrough. Will discuss more later.
 * 5) Stable? Yes.
 * 6) Illustrated? Yes.

This clearly is not a quick fail. I will go through each section individually and add criticisms in the coming days. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Textual sources and epigraphical findings
Here is my review of the first section:
 * General note: I would recommend discussing the sources in chronological order that they were written (or created, since you also mention the relief) to make it easier to understand which sources are the earliest and which ones are later. I am not sure if you already do this and I am a little confused about when the texts you are discussing date from. The only date you give in the whole section is the "fifth century CE" in the last paragraph.
 * -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Having looked again at the section, I am uncertain who to proceed. The first paragraph deals with the Pali texts, and the relation between the earliest Pali texts and the later commentaries. The second paragraph deals with other languages. If I were to rearrange the text, some of the relationships explained between early and later texts within the same textual tradition might become more difficult to understand. I will try a first draft in my sandbox.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 13:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have tried it and it does look better. Inserted the new, reorganized section now.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 17:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that is better. I am glad you added the dates to clarify when the texts described were written. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Buddhaghoṣa (5th century CE; depicted at the right) The caption here is confusing. Is the image shown from the fifth century CE or is it illustrating a person who lived in the fifth century CE? My initial assumption was that you were saying the image was from the fifth century CE and I have to say, if the image itself is that old, then it is in astonishingly good condition. However, I clicked on the link and it took me to the article on Buddhaghoṣa, which says he was from the fifth century CE, so my guess now is that that is probably what the caption meant, except that is not at all clear from reading the caption as it is currently written. I would recommend revising the caption.
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The earliest text that refers to Aṅgulimāla dates from the fifth century CE, You may want to specify at some point when Aṅgulimāla is supposed to have lived, because this is relevant in determining how close the earliest mentions of him are to the time when he is supposed to have been alive.
 * . It is presumed he lived at the same time as the Buddha. I have included a note with an estimate about the dating of the life of the Buddha.


 * pre-dates this text with approximately two centuries. I would suggest: "pre-dates this text by approximately two centuries" as more idiomatic. --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * dates from approximately 3rd century BE. I believe you mean BCE? As far as I am aware, "BE" is not a dating system. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. .--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have a generally strong dislike for short, single-sentence paragraphs, so I would recommend either merging the sentence about the relief into another paragraph or expanding this with more information on early visual representations. Nonetheless, this is really just my personal preference and, since this is your article, not mine, I would not want to force you to merge it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Previous life

 * In the texts a previous life is described before Aṅgulimāla met the Buddha Gautama... Try to refrain from using passive voice. This reads much more clearly if you switch it to active voice, saying, "Texts describe Aṅgulimāla's previous life before he met the Buddha Gautama..." --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. As far as they could be fixed I could fix them ...-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I believe "In this life he was born..." should be "In this life, he was born..." I know for certain this is how it would be written in American English, since any introductory phrase longer than two words requires a comma after it, but I am not sure if this applies to non-American varieties of English. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . I am not using any specific variety of English in this article, which I guess means we default to American English. Do you have a good external source for American interpunction? I'd appreciate it.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You may want to clarify that this section is talking about a previous incarnation, because when I read the words "previous life... before Aṅgulimāla met the Buddha Gautama," I initially assumed this merely meant his life in this incarnation before meeting the Buddha. That mistake is probably a result of my western cultural background, but, as it stands, the passage could be made less ambiguous. Saying "previous incarnation" instead of "previous life" might make this more clear. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.Incarnation is not a common term in Buddhist Studies because rebirth and birth are used in Buddhist texts, rather than the more Hindu-associated term incarnation (which implies a permanent self, a teaching Buddhism resists). But since Barrett uses the term (though Zin and Wilson use life) and I can't think of good alternative to solve the issue you point at, I'll use it for now, until I can think of something else. (German scholar Wilkens has fruehere Existenz, which literally means 'earlier existence', but I guess that in English that would not be idiomatic.)--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


 * as a man-eating king turned 'ghoul' I appreciate you trying to make the article more readable by using western translations for Indic words, but I do not think this is the right approach, because "ghoul," in my mind, is always an Arabic demon that haunts cemeteries and I am sure most other people are bound to think of the "ghouls" from George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It would be better to give the Pali word yakkha and its Sanskrit equivalent and define what the term means, rather than providing a similar western term as a gloss. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . I see your point here, but I am not sure how you want me to define this apart from a yaksha being a type of monster. I followed Zin and wrote a type of demon, removing ghoul.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Youth
I have no criticisms for this section, although I do have a few observations:
 * The birth narrative reminds me a bit of the birth stories of Paris and Oedipus in Greek mythology. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In another version of the story, the teacher's wife tries to seduce Ahiṃsaka. When the latter refuses her advances, she is spiteful and tells the teacher Ahiṃsaka has tried to seduce her. The story continues in the same way. This is a story we find in virtually all cultures across Europe and Asia. Its most famous versions today (at least in western cultures) are Hippolytus and Phaedra in Greek mythology and Joseph and Potiphar's wife in the Book of Genesis. It is interesting that Buddhists apparently have at least one version of it also. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore these; they are not particularly relevant to the review. I just thought I would comment on them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is amazing. First-generation Indologists like Burlingame and T. W. Rhys Davids have written much about these similarities. The latter claimed that the original to the proverbial "wolf in sheep's clothing" and the original to the Solomon's Judgement were both Buddhist stories! See also the excellent article about the blind men and an elephant ...-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Life as a brigand
No criticisms for this section either. It is all very well-written and well-sourced. I have to note, though, that the part about the "necklace of fingers" is incredibly disgusting. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's Wikipedia for you—UNCENSORED.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Meeting the Buddha

 * ...some psychic power... I have several complaints here. Firstly, are you sure "psychic power" is the best description here? When I hear the word "psychic power," I think of a spiritualist giving a cold reading, or maybe the X-Men, neither of which I think are the kind of psychic powers you are talking about here. Like the "ghoul" gloss, these translations seem to be far too broad-brushed. It would be better to give the actual word that is used in the source here and provide a definition of what it means, rather than trying to give an analogous western concept.
 * . Two sources have no alternative term. Bhikkhu Analayo has "feat of magic" though—does that work for you? Or do you prefer Robert Buswell Jr.'s "miracle"? PTS' Dictionary of Pāli, a standard work, has "supernatural accomplishment, magic power".
 * And again, your request for a definition instead of a gloss is challenging. I am uncertain if adding a sentence-long definition of the term will help the narrative, if that is what you intend me to do.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Replaced all instances with supernatural accomplishment now.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My second issue is that you pipe "psychic power" to Riddhi, which is a redirect to consorts of Ganesha. In the lead of that article, they explain that "Riddhi" is one of the three main consorts of the Hindu god Ganesha and that her name means "prosperity." I do not think this is the same sense at all in which the word is being used here in this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops again. . Good catch: we need more Katolophyromais on Wikipedia.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Life as a monk and death
No criticisms. This section is fine as it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Historical

 * Mahābharatha should be written in italics, since it is the title of an epic poem. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Do historians typically consider Aṅgulimāla a real person or do they regard him as purely legendary? If your sources do not discuss this issue, you do not need to double over backwards to try to find sources dealing with this, but, as the article currently stands, it is ambiguous what historians say about Aṅgulimāla's historicity. This section, I think, might be a good place to discuss the matter. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . They do discuss this indirectly, when discussing the the Tantric cult theory. I'll add or rewrite to make it clearer that this also is about historicity.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Have added the word  historical twice to emphasize that the violent cult theories imply that Angulimāla was a historical person.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Doctrinal
Well-written and very interesting. I found the discussion about the importance of forgiveness in Buddhism particularly fascinating. The lesson that the only purpose of punishment is to elicit reform is actually an idea that I have long wished that the justice system of my own country (the United States) would take note of.
 * Yes, I guess that Kumar's book was aimed at the US. Then again, it's a good thing that the US still has strong left and right wing politicians—in Europe, we only have center-right and far-right these days.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, "strong" is the last word I would use to describe the current state of the United States Democratic Party (our only left-wing party). The Republican Party (our only right-wing party) holds the majority in both houses of Congress, has control of the presidency, and has stocked the Supreme Court with justices that favor their views; that leaves the Democrats virtually completely impotent. Right now, their only power is the power of moral outrage: the ability to point to President Trump's objectively inhumane and ridiculous policies and say, "Isn't this just outrageous?" Then people get angry and protest. Then, within a week later, a new story comes up that is even more outrageous, so people move on and get angry about that, forgetting about the outrage that came before. Who knows, though, maybe that will change in the upcoming midterm elections this November. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I will, however, note that the paragraph length varies significantly throughout this section, which bothers me. I will not make you change it, though. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . Removed isolated sentence about East Asian Buddhism, and merged two other paragraphs with similar content.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In behavioral sciences
Very interesting, well-written section. I have to admit that I was honestly not expecting this kind of analysis here, but I think it is very helpful and tells a great deal of information about the subject that would otherwise be omitted. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I merely searched on Google Scholar.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

In modern culture
This section is likewise very well-written and I believe it adequately covers the subject of Aṅgulimāla in modern culture. It is far superior to the common "In popular culture" sections with bulleted points that so often populate our articles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And thanks again. I have tried to avoid such a section.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
I have now addressed all issues you mentioned, .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Waiting for your response, . I'm still alive for now.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Houston to, do you read me?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 17:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I have been very busy for the past few days and have not had many opportunities to edit. I will not have much time tomorrow either, but I will try to continue my review as soon as possible. If I have time, I will try to post the next few sections tonight. I know what it is like to feel like a reviewer has abandoned a review and I am trying to avoid putting you through that. The reviewer at Talk:Dragon/GA1 disappeared without a trace for whole seventeen days, despite me repeatedly pinging him/her to respond. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , okay, don't worry. Just don't forget me, lol.--
 * Awaiting new comments,
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead
The lead looks good, although I will note that I usually like to put the original language spellings of names into a footnote (see, for instance, how I handled it in the articles Hypatia, Pythagoras, and Satan). The reason why I do this is because, while it is important to give the original language spelling at some point, most people reading the article probably will not care about it and having it at the beginning clutters up the first line with information that probably does not matter to most people. I will not try to force this habit of mine onto you, but I thought I would leave note of it here in case you wanted to follow it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have removed the Sanskrit, which was in the language infobox anyway, but I think the translation "finger-garland" is still useful to keep (though gross).-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright. Looks good to me. I just thought I would give the suggestion. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I am now pleased to pass this article for "Good Article" status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the thorough review. Much appreciated. Looking at the Dragon article now—that reviewer is quite something, isn't he?
 * Any ideas for a DYK? I'm trying to improve on my record of number of views.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what to suggest for the DYK. I personally would prefer something about how his story illustrates the importance of forgiveness and mercy in Buddhism. If I were doing the DYK, I would probably make it something along those lines, but I generally tend to choose subjects that I personally find interesting and I am not sure how interesting your average Wikipedia main page visitor is going to find a hook of that variety. If you are looking for pure shock value, you could try the "necklace of severed human fingers" bit; that might attract some people's attention, but it could also alienate people who are not interested in severed appendages. I think that probably the best bet for attracting large numbers of views would be something about one of the film adaptations of Aṅgulimāla's story. The political motivations behind Kumar's adaptation might be a good subject for the hook, since that would relate the story to the present-day. You could try something like: "Did you know that the peace activist Satish Kumar adapted the ancient Buddhist story of Aṅgulimāla to address the Global War on Terror?"
 * Interesting enough. Thanks!-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dragon article, there is actually a major way in which you could help because I know you have studied mythology and I know you have some familiarity with East Asian culture. The article used to have a section about dragon stories from Indochina, but I had to remove it because it was entirely cited to a book written by a certain Theresa Bane, who, as I later learned, is completely unreliable as a source and she even reproduced information in one of her books from a hoax article on Wikipedia that I discovered. I have been thinking about asking you if you might be willing to write a new section on the subject to replace the one I removed for a while, but have not gotten around to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Something along the lines of Nāga?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)