A lot of the wording does not come across as particularly neutral, but rather appears to promote a pro-Jainist stance. For example, "In Jainism, a human being who has conquered all inner passions and therefore possesses omniscience" presupposes that a human actually can "conquer all inner passions" and "possess omniscience", which may be a core Jainist belief but which certainly is not undisputed fact.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Midnightblueowl Thanks for the review. However, I am not able to quite understand the points you have said. Can you please elaborate on points like "does not follow the guidance" and "number of un-referenced pieces". Also, I could not find the citation needed tag. Can you please help me locate. @
Corinne can you please help on the neutral comment. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(
talk·contribs·count)02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Midnightblueowl I could not find a "citation needed" tag. Are you sure you didn't mean the "clarification needed" tag in
Jainism#Monasticism (which I probably added as I was copy-editing the article)? I didn't know that lists were to be avoided if at all possible. It sounds, though, as if lists are allowed, and I think sometimes lists make reading easier than including the list in a long sentence. Are you recommending incorporating all the lists in this article into prose?
Yes, I meant a "Clarification needed". Apologies, it was a silly mistake. I wouldn't necessary call for all lists to be turned into prose, but there are cases, for instance when there are only four entries on a list, where it really would work better if incorporated into the prose. Best,
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Capankajsmilyo After you read
WP:LEDE and work on the lede a bit, let me know and I'll read it. Just go through each section and pick out the main points of each section and add them to what you already have (and make sure what you already have there is not too detailed). Look at several other religion articles that have been approved for GA and FA and see what is in the ledes and how they reflect the contents of the article. –
Corinne (
talk)
03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Capankajsmilyo I read the lead, and I think it is much improved. The sentences are fairly clear and succinct, and the organization into paragraphs is good. There are several minor issues that I want to discuss with you, but I will do so on the article's talk page so as not to take up too much space here on the review page. I'll post the link here when I have finished writing my comments. –
Corinne (
talk) 16:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Here is the link:
Talk:Jainism#Comments regarding the improved lead. –
Corinne (
talk)
17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
A lot of the wording does not come across as particularly neutral, but rather appears to promote a pro-Jainist stance. For example, "In Jainism, a human being who has conquered all inner passions and therefore possesses omniscience" presupposes that a human actually can "conquer all inner passions" and "possess omniscience", which may be a core Jainist belief but which certainly is not undisputed fact.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
16:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Midnightblueowl Thanks for the review. However, I am not able to quite understand the points you have said. Can you please elaborate on points like "does not follow the guidance" and "number of un-referenced pieces". Also, I could not find the citation needed tag. Can you please help me locate. @
Corinne can you please help on the neutral comment. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(
talk·contribs·count)02:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Midnightblueowl I could not find a "citation needed" tag. Are you sure you didn't mean the "clarification needed" tag in
Jainism#Monasticism (which I probably added as I was copy-editing the article)? I didn't know that lists were to be avoided if at all possible. It sounds, though, as if lists are allowed, and I think sometimes lists make reading easier than including the list in a long sentence. Are you recommending incorporating all the lists in this article into prose?
Yes, I meant a "Clarification needed". Apologies, it was a silly mistake. I wouldn't necessary call for all lists to be turned into prose, but there are cases, for instance when there are only four entries on a list, where it really would work better if incorporated into the prose. Best,
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Capankajsmilyo After you read
WP:LEDE and work on the lede a bit, let me know and I'll read it. Just go through each section and pick out the main points of each section and add them to what you already have (and make sure what you already have there is not too detailed). Look at several other religion articles that have been approved for GA and FA and see what is in the ledes and how they reflect the contents of the article. –
Corinne (
talk)
03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Capankajsmilyo I read the lead, and I think it is much improved. The sentences are fairly clear and succinct, and the organization into paragraphs is good. There are several minor issues that I want to discuss with you, but I will do so on the article's talk page so as not to take up too much space here on the review page. I'll post the link here when I have finished writing my comments. –
Corinne (
talk) 16:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Here is the link:
Talk:Jainism#Comments regarding the improved lead. –
Corinne (
talk)
17:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply