Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
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[1]
Corrected (Each paragraph has a copy of the citation that covers it.)
Leaves and some stars are green. [2]
Celery is green too[2]
Alternate Correction (If one cite doesn't cover everything.)
Leaves and some stars are green.[2][3]
Celery is green too[2]
Good (This is fine)
According to X. Ample:[4]
Leaves and Celery are green
Good (Or do it this way!)
According to X. Ample:
Leaves and Celery are green[4]
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)
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.
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)
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.