![]() | Bhikshuka Upanishad has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Bhikshuka Upanishad appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doug Coldwell ( talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I plan to review this article.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it make sense to somehow incorporate the single sentence after the first paragraph into this first paragraph? OR maybe it should be structured that way, as I see it is the lead for the mendicant monks.
Seems to be a lot of white space after For example.
@ Ms Sarah Welch:@ Nvvchar:@ BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As with the Jabala Upanishad review, I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them.
To be a GA you have to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD: one major aspect is that topics covered in the lead need to be covered in the body of the article. Yet almost none of the material in the opening paragraph appears in the body of the text: that it's a minor Upanishad, that it's written in Sanskrit, etc. Indeed, there is typically no need for inline citations in the lead section unless quotes or controversial information appears here, because the information should also appear in the body and be cited there, yet this has six separate citations (one of which appears twice).
There are also prose issues:
I'll get back to this when I can, but there are two other reviews I haven't yet posted anything to, and Jabala still to complete. It will probably take a few days; I am not a fast reviewer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
After the recent revision, this section only actually deals with when the Upanishad was created ("chronology") in the last half; its first half talks about other basic facts instead. The section is far from meeting the "clear and concise" GA prose requirement, and needs a major copyedit: in the third sentence, "its authorship ... is believed to have been composed" (authorship is not composed), and "between the 14th and 15th centuries" (there's nothing between them); in the fourth, the repetition of "same [in] substance" is problematic, as is the general tenor of the sentence: it is not clear to me whether the Bhikshuka Upanishad is basically a copy of the fourth chapter of the Ashrama Upanishad, or if they cover approximately the same facts with rather different wording.
I did a copyedit of all but the first paragraph, which I think you need to straighten out on your own. Some issues that I couldn't solve in the text I did edit:
That's the initial pass through the article. There's a lot of work to be done here in terms of rewording; I'm sure there will be another round of requests. Please take especial care in the revisions that the resulting text is clear and concise, and does not introduce new issues while fixing old ones. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I've just done a second pass, and in most places I've edited the article directly, including the Contents section and its two subsections, where I felt that repeating that each monk type seeks liberation only through yoga practice did not adhere to the "concise" part of the "clear and concise" GA criterion, so it's now only mentioned once, in the main section.
The first paragraph under History is still problematic, as I do not understand what "same in substance" means as written. The Deussen source mentions "chief points"; it appears that while both cover the same ground—I believe the four types of monks are the same in both?—they don't necessarily do it in the same way and with the same words.
The Kutichaka monk description is down to a list of names and the eight mouthfuls. Is there nothing more that distinguishes them? The Ashrama Upanishad would appear to describe them as still living with a family member or with family, in their hut (a "hut" monk, if you will), on page 765 of Deussen, but that description may not be in Bhikshuka. If there's anything more you can add to describe this type of monk, as a way of differentiating from the others, I think it's important to include.
I still need to find the time to check more of the sources—at least, those that are available to me—but in the meantime you can work on the two issues that I've mentioned above, and also check to make sure that my edits did not do violence to the facts. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So far as I can see, the article now meets the GA criteria. Since this is officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, my congratulations on some excellent work in getting the article to this point. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Bhikshuka Upanishad has been listed as one of the
Philosophy and religion good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 18, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Bhikshuka Upanishad appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 November 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Doug Coldwell ( talk · contribs) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I plan to review this article.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 11:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Would it make sense to somehow incorporate the single sentence after the first paragraph into this first paragraph? OR maybe it should be structured that way, as I see it is the lead for the mendicant monks.
Seems to be a lot of white space after For example.
@ Ms Sarah Welch:@ Nvvchar:@ BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.-- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 12:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
As with the Jabala Upanishad review, I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them.
To be a GA you have to meet the requirements of WP:LEAD: one major aspect is that topics covered in the lead need to be covered in the body of the article. Yet almost none of the material in the opening paragraph appears in the body of the text: that it's a minor Upanishad, that it's written in Sanskrit, etc. Indeed, there is typically no need for inline citations in the lead section unless quotes or controversial information appears here, because the information should also appear in the body and be cited there, yet this has six separate citations (one of which appears twice).
There are also prose issues:
I'll get back to this when I can, but there are two other reviews I haven't yet posted anything to, and Jabala still to complete. It will probably take a few days; I am not a fast reviewer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
After the recent revision, this section only actually deals with when the Upanishad was created ("chronology") in the last half; its first half talks about other basic facts instead. The section is far from meeting the "clear and concise" GA prose requirement, and needs a major copyedit: in the third sentence, "its authorship ... is believed to have been composed" (authorship is not composed), and "between the 14th and 15th centuries" (there's nothing between them); in the fourth, the repetition of "same [in] substance" is problematic, as is the general tenor of the sentence: it is not clear to me whether the Bhikshuka Upanishad is basically a copy of the fourth chapter of the Ashrama Upanishad, or if they cover approximately the same facts with rather different wording.
I did a copyedit of all but the first paragraph, which I think you need to straighten out on your own. Some issues that I couldn't solve in the text I did edit:
That's the initial pass through the article. There's a lot of work to be done here in terms of rewording; I'm sure there will be another round of requests. Please take especial care in the revisions that the resulting text is clear and concise, and does not introduce new issues while fixing old ones. Thank you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, I've just done a second pass, and in most places I've edited the article directly, including the Contents section and its two subsections, where I felt that repeating that each monk type seeks liberation only through yoga practice did not adhere to the "concise" part of the "clear and concise" GA criterion, so it's now only mentioned once, in the main section.
The first paragraph under History is still problematic, as I do not understand what "same in substance" means as written. The Deussen source mentions "chief points"; it appears that while both cover the same ground—I believe the four types of monks are the same in both?—they don't necessarily do it in the same way and with the same words.
The Kutichaka monk description is down to a list of names and the eight mouthfuls. Is there nothing more that distinguishes them? The Ashrama Upanishad would appear to describe them as still living with a family member or with family, in their hut (a "hut" monk, if you will), on page 765 of Deussen, but that description may not be in Bhikshuka. If there's anything more you can add to describe this type of monk, as a way of differentiating from the others, I think it's important to include.
I still need to find the time to check more of the sources—at least, those that are available to me—but in the meantime you can work on the two issues that I've mentioned above, and also check to make sure that my edits did not do violence to the facts. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
So far as I can see, the article now meets the GA criteria. Since this is officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, my congratulations on some excellent work in getting the article to this point. BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)