Talk:Jainism/GA5

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I'm coming at this as a person not particularly familiar with the religion. This is good insofar as it lets me tell you if things are clear, but if you want to get this to featured article, you're going to want to get several people who are knowledgeable. You also want to make sure that subjects under dispute are covered fairly.

I'll give an example of possible problems I have no way to catch using other religions as an example: Christianity has several major sects. It would be entirely possible to describe an aspect of Christianity, say, transsubstantiation, from the point of view of Catholicism, and it might not be obvious that a very different view on the subject existed in another group. One could also do things like write about the beliefs of more fundamentalist Christians as if they were key defining points of the religion, ignoring that liberal Christians might disagree quite a bit with that.

Jainism is a smaller religion, so this article is less likely to have those sorts of problems, but my point is that if it did, I'm unlikely to catch it, so getting an expert to review this is important if you're going to take it to Featured article

Okay. Disclaimer aside: Let's get started. This is the fifth GA review, so let's start by looking at the previous four.

GA review 4 points out some parts are unreferenced. This is still a minor problem here: Every paragraph out side of the lead either needs to be referenced, or be a list or quote referenced just before it starts. I'll mark up the places where a reference is needed.

This is important: Make sure the reference covers the whole paragraph if it comes at the end of a paragraph and there's no reference before that.

And I'll pause the review here to allow this issue - almost fixed, but not quite - to be worked on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. This is a big article. Let's just accept this is going to take a few back-and-forth passes, and just relax and co-operate on it. It does seem too be most of the way there. To start, let's deal with the referencing issue - I've marked all the places where, off-hand, I'd expect a citation, but didn't see one. In some cases, it may be covered by a later reference, but you should always end every paragraph with a reference for that paragraph, even if you end up having a few copies of the same reference in a row, unless it's a list or quote that you sourced immediately prior to it. E.g.:

Bad ''(First "paragraph" just pretend it's a paragraph lacks a cite. The information is covered by the reference at the end of the second paragraph - but the reader doesn't know that.

Leaves and some stars are green.

Celery is green too

Corrected (Each paragraph has a copy of the citation that covers it.)

Leaves and some stars are green.

Celery is green too

Alternate Correction (If one cite doesn't cover everything.)

Leaves and some stars are green.

Celery is green too

Good (This is fine)

According to X. Ample:

"Leaves and Celery are green"

Good (Or do it this way!)

According to X. Ample:

"Leaves and Celery are green"

Anyway, you get the idea. I've also marked everything I think needs a reference. Poke me on my talk page when you want me to have another look. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sorry if I'm over-explaining. You wrote this article; I know you know things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not taking part in this review, but I do have a comment on that advice. There is no requirement to have a little blue number at the end of every paragraph, either in the GA requirements or in Wikipedia guidelines generally.  Of course, it is a legitimate question for a reviewer to ask where that paragraph is verified, but you should not fail the GA if you get a good answer to that question and still no little blue number.  This criterion is something that has been invented by reviewers and patrollers to make their life easier.  It has no basis in policy.  It is perfectly legitimate to reference a whole section with one inline cite or just cover it in a general reference unless it is one of the very specific things that WP:V demands an inline cite for. SpinningSpark 23:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Review part II
There's still one citation needed tag, but let's deal with the next obvious issue - the article fails to summarise the subarticles well near the end of it - one gets the feeling that some author of this lost steam near the end.

So, let's deal with the four end sections next.


 * 1) Temples: This is the best of the four, but it focuses on one example temple. That's not a bad idea, but - and while I will point out to be careful, because a lot of the subarticle Jain temple is rather bad - I'd say that a summary of (or just a rewriting of) the "Architecture" subsection of the article - WITH CITATIONS ADDED would be a sufficient addition. IMPORTANT NOTE: If you do copy it over, make sure to say you're doing so in your edit summary.
 * 2) Statues and sculptures this focuses on a single example, and I'd argue this example would be better moved into the subarticle, Jain sculpture, where it would be very much worth noting. For an overview article, though, remove it (to the subarticle; don't just delete it) and I think you basically want to copy from the subarticle the lead, iconography, and examples sections as they currently are.
 * 3) Symbols The linked article covers four main symbols: The swastika, the Symbol of Ahimsa, the Jain emblem, the Jain flag, and it briefly mentions the "Om" symbol. All five of them need covered, though with a LOT less detail than there.
 * 4) Reception I think that some of the actual criticism needs mentioned here; you can't really link to an article on criticism of Jainism, then only say good things about it. That said, this is not the place to attack Jainism. Obviously. Something along the lines of Christianity, which would certainly be the ideal, though I know writing something like that would make my brain hurt. This is probably the hardest task for any article on a religion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that the rest of the article won't need much work, so Part III of the review shouldn't be too bad. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please have a look now and suggest further changes (if needed) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adam Cuerden and Capankajsmilyo - Hi, I have two quick comments about the article. There are several instances of WP:CITEKILL in here. Also, the introduction is longer than four paragraphs so this needs to be fixed too per WP:LEAD. Besides that, great job with the article! ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 17:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: closing review page, since it has been abandoned, and putting the nomination back into the reviewing pool. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)