Talk:Eight precepts/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, !-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 06:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you still pursuing this?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 17:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry for the delay. Tea with toast   (話)  03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Well done article. I enjoyed learning about this topic
 * Thanks!-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Well done, I like the organization here.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.
 * I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.
 * I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just need the one citation to pass.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just need the one citation to pass.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Just need the one citation to pass.

A few minor things that could be added moving forward (not necessary for a GA pass, but more for expansion to move towards feature article status):
 * The latter half of the "description" section could be pulled out into an "origin" section.
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am curious about the Iranian origin theory mentioned. Could added a sentence or two to describe this further, if appropriate
 * -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Apparently, Przyluksi discusses Neo-Babylonian influence, not Iranian. Directly cited and expanded now.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The article and sources give mention to the 10 precepts; could expand to further delineate the differences between these two.
 * There are too little sources about this in English language. It could be done by someone familiar and versed in Chinese or Japanese-language scholarship, though. Not me.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Tea with toast   (話)  03:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the tips!-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now responded to all your suggestions. Let me know if you have any more.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Great job with the edits. It's looking more polished now. Just need a source to support the sentence in the intro that this was something that was practiced back in 7th-10th century China. I'll pass the article once that is done. Tea with toast   (話)  21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's already in the body of the text, . Under Eight precepts. It is therefore not required to put another citation in the lead. Unless you think it is controversial, that is.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , a friendly reminder.- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have notified the reviewer on his user page, and given him a deadline. He has not responded. Archiving and renominating.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)