Talk:Filial piety in Buddhism/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose looks good, I made a few tweaks to match common English usage. I really like the lead, it's very comprehensive.
 * Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Your edits are very useful.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Referencing is impeccable, I really like the way you use hidden comments after many sentences to show what page the information came from. I've never seen that before but it's useful.
 * Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very close to the GA standard, I just saw a few small issues, explained below. I'll put the article on hold for now so you can fix those. Thank you for making those corrections! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, !-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Very close to the GA standard, I just saw a few small issues, explained below. I'll put the article on hold for now so you can fix those. Thank you for making those corrections! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, !-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

 * In Buddhist texts: I've never seen a phrase like ordains as a monk before, I'm not sure if that is the correct usage. I would change it to a man who is ordained as a monk, usually the word is passive e.g. to be ordained.  I could be wrong though.
 * . You're right. Somebody already pointed this out to me in a previous review. I guess this fox does get caught twice in the same snare.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Images: The image caption for the image in Introduction of Buddhism to China doesn't make it immediately clear that this woman in a Buddhist nun or why the photo is there. Consider revising the caption.
 * . I guess a modern color photo of a nun does not make much sense when you are talking about Chinese nuns from over thousand years ago.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Introduction of Buddhism to China: I'm a little confused by the phrase as well as suffering in family life, does Buddhism really advocate suffering? No problem if so, but please clarify if not.
 * It doesn't. Thanks for the catch..


 * Apologetics and adaptation: The phrase destructive to the person needs a reference since it is a direct quotation.
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Role of women: I didn't really understand the first paragraph. You say that there was a need for changing post-Han society to deal with unruly daughters-in-law, could you expand on that a little more?  Why were daughters-in-law so unruly?
 * ✅. I have rephrased for improved neutrality and added a note.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And what does it mean that daughters expressed filial piety "in more extreme forms"? --Cerebellum (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * . Expanded.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)