Talk:Luang Por Dattajivo/GA1

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

Reviewer: WPCW (talk · contribs) 22:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, I have taken on the task of reviewing the article. Please let me know if you have any questions during this process.

Regards, --WPCW (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, !-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________________________

Initial Review

The review of the article was at the time and date displayed at the end of the review. The review complied with the Wikipedia good article criteria,

Well written

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustrated

Well Written

Overall the article is well written with few spelling and grammar mistakes. The article format mostly complies with the Manual of Style. Some issues need addressing to meet the good article criteria.

(1)	In both the lead section and the early life section the word ‘layname’ is used. A dictionary check on the words ‘layname’ and ‘lay name’ failed to find a definition of it. Reading the article, I think the word ‘layname’ may be referring to Dattajivo’s birth name. Please can this be clarified, if necessary altered?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(2)	The lead section says Dattajivo is ‘a well-known teacher and speaker’. By just reading the lead section I did not know why he was a well-known teacher and speaker. The lead section would be improved if it briefly mentioned why he was a well-known teacher and speaker.
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(3)	The early life section discusses Chaiyabun. I found it confusing when it was not until the end of this section that his ordained name was Luang Por Dhammajayo. Ideally, this section needs rewriting so at the very beginning readers understand that Chaiyabun and Luang Por Dhammajayo are the same person.
 * ✅.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(4)	The life as a deputy abbot includes the sentence,

Some Thai news outlets, such as Khao Sod, became critical of the new charges, stating that weeks after the accusations were made neither the junta nor DSI have produced any form of evidence supporting the alleged trading of stocks, describing the accusations as "a new invention, followed by silence"

The article does not previously mention the abbreviation DSI. Please can this be clarified?
 * . I rewrote it to follow the source more closely.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(5)	The recognition section has a sentence that reads,

In the 2010s, a stupa was built by Luang Por Dhammajayo honoring him, called the Phra Maha Cetiya Dattajivo.[12]

The meaning of the sentence is unclear. Would the sentence, ‘In the 2010s, a stupa, honouring Luang Por Dattajivo, called the Phra Maha Cetiya Dattajivo, was built by Luang Por Dhammajayo’ be clearer?
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Verifiable with no written research

The article uses a range of reliable sources, including academic journals, and many of them are verifiable via weblinks. The article does have some referencing issues that require addressing.

(6)	Reference 25 is displaying a red error message.
 * Do you mean Khao Sodh English? That is a REDLINKED wikilink, because it is a notable newspaper with no article yet. It is not an error.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(7)	A check via https://tools.wmflabs.org/dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Luang_Por_Dattajivo shows some issues, mainly articles not showing accessed date, ...
 * . One link is dead though.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

... and not adding an extra comment in the source editor when a subscription is required. These matters need reviewing.
 * .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(8)	In two instances the page number is written in the article next to the citation, such as [6]:83[7] and [8]:123–4. This is a potential problem as citation numbers are not static and may change if a new source added. The page numbers need incorporating into the reference list.
 * Not sure what you mean here. This is a legitimate referencing system. See Bhumibol, for example. This is the template page.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Broad in coverage

The article has a good breadth of coverage of the topic. Although the expansion of an article is only usually necessary for the development of it, in this instance, further work is required to allow a person with no knowledge of it to understand some of the main topics of the article.

(9)	The article mentions ‘Thai black magic’. To explain that topic a wikilink is made from the article words ‘Thai black magic’, to the ‘Khatha’ page. The Khatha page needs much improvement. Due to this, I cannot understand the links between Thai black magic and Khatha, as neither page mentions the alternative term. To understand the article I really need to know a little about Thai black magic. I can see two ways of doing this, both requiring extra research. Either the article needs to include more information about Thai black magic, or the Khatha page needs improving.
 * . Replaced wikilink.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(10)	I do not know anything about Buddist temples, and I unsure what about the role of a temple caretaker. Please could the article explain what a caretaker does in a temple?
 * . Replaced by observing abbot.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(11)	The life of a deputy abbot section mentions his writings and ‘His books are often about contemporary problems’ and mentions the topic ‘Buddhist economics.’ After reading this section, I am not entirely sure about the subjects included in his publications  Please consider saying something about the types of ‘contemporary problems’ he addresses in his books, and define the meaning of ‘Buddist economics.’
 * . I rephrased Buddhist economics. Seeger doesn't give any examples of 'contemporary problems' (zeitgenössische Probleme), but I added an example from a primary source.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

The article is written in a neutral tone and appears impartial.

Stable

The article is stable, with no evidence of any editing disputes, and unlikely to change on a regular basis.

Illustrated

The article includes suitable and appropriately captioned photographs. A check of the photograph copyright licences found no issues.

Recommendations

At this time, for the reasons mentioned in the review, the article does not meet the good article criteria. To the editors’ credit, it is obvious they have worked hard on it, and I am of the opinion, that with the necessary revision, the article will soon reach the required standard. For this reason, I am happy for the editors’ to choose the best way forward for this article. Depending on their decision, I will fail it, allowing them as much time as needed to develop it before resubmission. Alternatively, if they feel that the necessary changes can be completed in a reasonable time, I am willing to put the review ‘on hold’ until the 24th June 2018 when I will reassess it. WPCW (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , the issues that you have mentioned can be fixed within the allotted time frame. I have been able to get articles passed which had much more problems that you have mentioned here. Give me some time, and we'll get there. With your permission, I will insert my replies to the comments above.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think I have addressed all issues you mentioned.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________

Reassessment
,

Many thanks for your very quick and hard work on these issues, it is a pleasure working with you. I am a novice on Buddism, but due to your changes, I have a better insight into the subject. My apologies, I can see ‘DSI’ is part of the quotation, and you are right it needs to be the same as in the original document. I also now realise that Khao Sod English is the English version of Khao Sod. The comment I made about the page numbers in the text was because I have never seen it before, but accept, from the articles you pointed me towards, the referencing style has been used before and approved on a higher 'B' grade article, so I have learnt something new!

In my opinion, this article completely meets the good article criteria, and I am happy to update the article grading to GA.

Kind Regards, WPCW (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ! Khao Sod English is published by the same publisher as Khao Sod, but they are worlds apart in terms of political orientation and editorial style. The system is rather inflexible: at the time I started editing Luang Por Dattajivo I liked it, but now I prefer  . Thanks for looking at my replies this quickly, and I hope to work with you again sometimes.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)