Talk:Rishabhanatha/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 08:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's get this started. Generally speaking, on a first look-over, I see two big problems: Some uncited text in the "Legends" and "Birth" section, and way too many images. There's four separate galleries in this article, as well as numerous side images. Choose the best examples of each type, or expand the article to justify it more. For example, if you discuss the monolithic statues, you can easily justify more images of them, and will have space to include them.

But some of the images are going to need to go whatever's done; I'd suggest starting with the ones that don't thumbnail as well, the ones that are most similar to other images, and ones that give the same information as other images. Try to eliminate some of the galleries.

Sources used seem good; I can't readily check them.

As I said, I'm nto an expert in this. Since he apparently appears in Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, though, I think we need a discussion of how his depiction varies from Jain texts. If it does. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried to resolve the issues raised by you. Please have a look again and let me know what else needs to be done. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I think it still needs more on Hindu and Buddhist depictions for comprehensiveness - basically, an expansion of In literature, though, if how he's depicted in those religions vary, you should say how where relevant immediately after the Jain description.
 * 2) In Founding of Jainism:
 * 3) The sentence "Twenty-four Tīrthaṅkaras grace this part of the universe in duşamā-suşamā (read as dukhmā-sukhmā) ara of both halves." doesn't appear to make sense. Amongst other things, "grace" is an odd verb choice, "duşamā-suşamā" isn't explained, there's no detailing of how the universe is divided, etc.  (Still uses "grace", but it's a lot clearer)
 * 4) "The institution of marriage came into existence after he married to set an example for other humans to follow." might benefit by saying "is said to have come". I think it reads a bit more encyclopedically if we keep just slightly detached when depiicting Jain beliefs. ✅
 * 5) "In total, Rishabhanatha is said to have taught seventy-two sciences which include: arithmetic, the plastic and visual arts, the art of lovemaking, singing and dancing." I'd be inclined to name all seventy-two. It'd be listy, but I think it'd be more informative. You can do it in a sidebar, in a pinch.
 * 6) "Ṛṣabhanātha is said to be the founder of Jainism in the present half cycle" - I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean Jainism will need refounded in the next half cycle, or?
 * 7) In Legends, not counting the subsections:
 * 8) "Ādi purāṇa, a major Jain text records the life accounts of Rishabhanatha as well as ten previous lives." - Firstly, I think we need more of a description of the text. Secondly, is "ten previous lives" meant to imply reincarnation, or just to say that there are other people depicted?
 * 9) "Rishabhanatha is associated with his Bull emblem, the Nyagrodha tree, Gomukha (bull-faced) Yaksha, and Chakresvari Yakshi" - Please give more description of each of these. What is a Bull emblem, what is a Yaksha, what is Chakresvari Yakshi?
 * 10) In Birth, the sentence "Garbha kalyanaka is the first auspicious event out of five auspicious events (Panch Kalyanaka)" doesn't really give enough context for where the idea of five auspicious events is coming from.
 * 11) In Kingdom:
 * 12) I think we'd better change "and was one of the greatest initiators of human progress" to "and is said to have been one of the greatest initiators of human progress". Again, a slight detachment makes it more encyclopedic.
 * 13) Lakh is just defined as 100,000 on the linked page. As such, the sentence "Rishabhanatha is said to have lived for 84 lakh (pūrva) of which 20 lakh pūrva were spent as a youth (kumāra kāla), and 63 lakh pūrva as the King (rājya kāla)." does not make sense. 84 lakh of WHAT? Does pūrva have a meaning, despite being put in parentheses after "lakh" the first time? And are the terms actually necessary to use? "two million" is more accessible than "20 lakh".
 * 14) In Renunciation
 * 15) I don't suppose there's another term that could be used for the title of this section? Or maybe "Renunciation of the world" or some phrasing in that line? Because "Renunciation" can also be used for giving up a religion, indeed, is more commonly used for that in Western religions, and as such, it's a little confusing until explained.
 * 16) "Indra of the first heaven" could use a little more introduction, if possible. Also, what is the "first heaven"?
 * 17) In Akshaya Tritiya, define "Akshaya Tritiya" before going on to any other facts about it. Also define "Digambara monks".
 * 18) In Omniscience, "the following is the number of followers" is a little awkward of phrasing; using two words based on "follow", but with very different meanings is awkward. Also, "lakh" again; see above for the problems with this.
 * 19) Briefly describe the contents of each text in "In literature".
 * 20) In "Iconography", give a brief description of "abhisheka"
 * 21) Briefly discuss the colossal statues and temples.

That's a long list, I know, but that should get everything, subject to any issues with the edited text. I think this will also be most of the way to featured article once it's done, and I'd suggest a peer review be started once it reaches GA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Adam Cuerden, Capankajsmilyo, where does this review stand? I see that there have been two series of edits by Capankajsmilyo in mid- and late December, after the most recent comments here, but no indication from Capankajsmilyo of which of the issues noted by Adam Cuerden have been addressed. Thanks for any updating you can do. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's been another two months without any comment from the reviewer (now over three months), and Capankajsmilyo has addressed the issues (per user talk page) in those edits. This nomination is going back into the pool to find a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)