Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jainism/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:29, 13 January 2013.

Jainism

 * Nominator(s): Rahuljain2307 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been improved substantially since last review. It has addressed all the issues raised and now meets the criteria for FAC. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose regretfully. I can see the article has improved a lot, but unfortunately, and typically, all the previous FAC comments concerned technical matters of referencing rather than the actual content, which I don't think is at FA standard. Indian religious philosophy is notoriously difficult to write about for a general mostly Western readership, and I don't think this article pulls it off in various places.


 * There is a general problem with the history. The article starts by saying in the lead: "Jainism has its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization, reflecting native spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India." which is a somewhat bold statement, and misleading without qualification and reference to wider shramana traditions, which comes in the next sentence, but with an unclear connection to this. The link to shramana is earlier, hidden away in "Ancient texts also refer to Jainism as shraman dharma (self-reliant)". All of this needs setting out more clearly as soon as it is introduced, and the implication that all the shramana traditions can be treated as Jainism or proto-Jainism should either be set out clearly, or modified.  A, even the, key explanatory point as far as the recoverable history of Jainism is concerned then appears in the next section on non-violence, more fully than in the actual history section, which doesn't connect the various early periods it mentions, and is written pretty chaotically. The first para of the "comparative studies" section, right at the end, contains key information that should be at the start of of the history section, or even in the lead.
 * Done -


 * "Ahimsa (non-violence) is the heart of Jainism" - well sort of, but is this the best way to describe Jain philosophy? It is certainly the most distinctive and best-known aspect of Jain religious practice, but that's not the same thing. To me it seems a bit like saying "Wearing 18th century styles of clothing is the heart of Amish religion".  The next sentence is "The understanding and implementation of ahimsa is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive than in any other religion." which miught be true, although in the past Jains have not shrunk from military activity, which other religious groups have.
 * Done -


 * the timing and causes of the relative decline of Jainism in India are not covered at all. Or has it always been a merchant-class religion with a very small proportion of the total population?
 * Done -


 * I notice that much of the article contains the same text as other articles on the different aspects - I don't know what the direction of travel has been, but reading the article does not contradict the impression that it is something of a patchwork of bits from elsewhere.
 * What solution do you propose?
 * Only general improvement, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No mention of Jain art and architecture, for which we don't have any main articles beyond Jain temple.
 * Done -
 * Ok, really only covers architecture, & in a rather muddled way. I might add some myself. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There are probably too many references, not all of good quality. Robinson and Voorst appear to be secondary school textbooks. I don't like links to Amazon pages about a book with no preview. Equally most points here could surely be referenced equally well to 5 or 6 of the better books. better to pick 3 or so main good refs & do the basic stuff to them.
 * I think that the large scope and size of the article justifies the number of references. -

Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it right that the priests at Jain temples are traditionally Hindu Brahmins? Worth mentioning if so.


 * I have addressed most of the points you raised. The lead section now clearly mentions about the Shramana tradition and its relation with Jainism. I have made a small section on the art/architecture and the decline of Jainism in India. The number of references are justified by the size and the scope of article. I am not aware of any such information that the priests at Jain temples are traditionally Hindu Brahmins. However, if you can find a reliable source for that, I'll make sure it is mentioned in the appropriate place. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the last point, try p. 170 in your source Jainism: The World of Conquerors, Volume 1, By Natubhai Shah - doesn't exactly say what I did, but getting there. There are other points in this section that could be covered. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added information about priesthood in the section on monasticism. That should be sufficient, I think. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I commend your efforts in taking on an article of this magnitude, but unfortunately I disagree that it currently meets FAC criteria. Some specific points for further improvement:
 * General copy-editing needed for prose quality, clarity and flow. For example, "Whereas consumption of most terrestrial vegetables doesn't kill the plant" is not a complete sentence, while "The symbol of hand" is not grammatically correct
 * Done -
 * Not done - those specific examples have been edited but were examples only. A thorough copy-editing for quality and clarity is needed. For example, "converted many Jains to Muslim by his fluency" is both ungrammatical and unclear


 * WP:MOS cleanup is needed - hyphen/dash confusion, use of contractions outside quotes, etc
 * Done -
 * Not done - contractions are gone, but again this was only an example of issues. Other examples include hyphens/dashes (still) and treatment of numbers in-text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Pick one variant of English and stick to it - for example, you've currently got both "behaviour" and "behavior"
 * Done -
 * Not done - eg behaviour vs harbor, civilization vs organisation, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Check automated suggestions here - includes dead link and double redirect
 * Done -
 * Not done - still lists issues, including a disambiguation link that should be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Many inconsistencies in reference formatting - changes in date format, missing dates or publishers, etc
 * Done -
 * Not done - multiple inconsistencies remain. Compare for example FNs 110 and 111, or 137 and 145, or Adiga and Banerjee. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Use of sources of uncertain reliability, like Goodreads
 * Done -
 * Not done - for example, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? What is the background of the author(s)? What is its editorial / fact-checking policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Problems with images - India does not have freedom of panorama for engravings and Belgium doesn't have it at all, File:Kharavela-Kingdom.GIF lacks a source and is tagged for disputed accuracy, Double-sided leaf lacks a US PD tag, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Still problems here - unclear and ungrammatical captions, File:Jainsects.PNG and File:Jain_universe.JPG need sources for the information they represent, File:Shantinatha.jpg contains engraved art despite lack of FOP in India for such, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As per your suggestions, I have made changes in the article. Some copy-editing was done to make the article grammatically correct and to improve its quality. Contractions outside quotes are now removed. British English seems more appropriate for Jainism, hence I have changed -or to -our. Removed the dead links, double redirects and unreliable citations. Almost all of the references use the same template, so the issue of reference formatting should not be there. I have reorganized the images. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, but I'm afraid that problems persist here so my oppose will stand for now. You might consider seeking an independent copy-editor to help you with the prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per Johnbod and Nikkimaria. I popped down the page and the first thing I found was "Meditation in Jainism aims at taking the soul to status of complete freedom from bondages."  A thorough independent copyedit is needed.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually that is probably accurate in the special sense of "bondages" given elsewhere in the article, but I agree it is not clear. Buddhist material usually uses "attachments" for what is maybe the same concept; not sure if that is worth using, or at least giving as an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Johnbod. Is "status of" not redundant in this context?  Some of it reads like psychobabble and it's hard for the non-initiated to know.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, on both points. I have been reading around a bit & I think the material is generally accurate, but as I said in starting my comments, it's really difficult to convey Indian philosophy to a Western audience. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the required changes in the section on meditation. It should be clearer now. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate query -- Three early opposes but no suggestion to withdraw; is current consensus that improvement to FA-quality is possible in a relatively short time, or rather that the nom should be archived and work done away from FAC before another try? Talk to me, people... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't know you waited for "withdrawal" declarations ... I always acted on the principle that whenever a nomination had demonstrably not addressed previous issues, it was automatically archived per the FAC instructions (which state that previous issues must be addressed before nom). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted, Sandy, but a) withdrawal recommendations have been common in similar situations at least in the time I've been on the job and b) I don't see anyone above clearly stating that their opposition is due to the nominator having "demonstrably not addressed previous issues" -- I am on the go at the moment, so did I miss that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Last time only referencing points were really raised, which I admit I haven't examined much. Sandy recommended withdrawing & doing a peer review, but one had just been done before, with no comments at all, so I can't blame the nom for not doing another. This time reviewers are getting round to prose & content, effectively the first real examination this has had at PR/FAC. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, crud, Ian ... my apologies ... I was confusing this with another FAC I had just reviewed, where it had been mentinoned that previous issues had not been addressed (and which I believe you archived). My bad.  Johnbod is in better position to evaluate whether issues here can be addressed in the course of a FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ian, how long is "relatively short"? The nominator is obviously willing to work on issues, but said issues are still considerable (and possibly require the involvement of helpers other than the nominator). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "relatively short" in FAC-time for me is a couple of weeks or so, and it looks like there's still a good deal of progress to be made a week after my query. I can see that despite the nominator's efforts to action your objections they effectively all remain, as do Johnbod's and Sandy's. I will be archiving this now and suggest that, once further work has been done (including an independent copyedit and/or input from Johnbod if he's willing and able), if Peer Review has been a dead-end previously then the FAC reviewers could be contacted to offer their opinion on whether concerns have been addressed before the article is renominated (which in any case must be at least two weeks after this current nom has been archived). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.