Talk:Filial piety in Buddhism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Filial piety in Buddhism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose looks good, I made a few tweaks to match common English usage. I really like the lead, it's very comprehensive.

Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Your edits are very useful.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Referencing is impeccable, I really like the way you use hidden comments after many sentences to show what page the information came from. I've never seen that before but it's useful.

Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Very close to the GA standard, I just saw a few small issues, explained below. I'll put the article on hold for now so you can fix those. Thank you for making those corrections! Pass. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cerebellum!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• In Buddhist texts: I've never seen a phrase like ordains as a monk before, I'm not sure if that is the correct usage. I would change it to a man who is ordained as a monk, usually the word is passive e.g. to be ordained. I could be wrong though.

•  Removed. You're right. Somebody already pointed this out to me in a previous review. I guess this fox does get caught twice in the same snare.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Images: The image caption for the image in Introduction of Buddhism to China doesn't make it immediately clear that this woman in a Buddhist nun or why the photo is there. Consider revising the caption.

•  Removed. I guess a modern color photo of a nun does not make much sense when you are talking about Chinese nuns from over thousand years ago.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Introduction of Buddhism to China: I'm a little confused by the phrase as well as suffering in family life, does Buddhism really advocate suffering? No problem if so, but please clarify if not.

• It doesn't. Thanks for the catch.  Fixed.

• Apologetics and adaptation: The phrase destructive to the person needs a reference since it is a direct quotation.

•  Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Role of women: I didn't really understand the first paragraph. You say that there was a need for changing post-Han society to deal with unruly daughters-in-law, could you expand on that a little more? Why were daughters-in-law so unruly?

•  Done. I have rephrased for improved neutrality and added a note.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• And what does it mean that daughters expressed filial piety "in more extreme forms"? --Cerebellum (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

•  Fixed. Expanded.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Śyāma, a well-known story about filial piety in Buddhism

• ... that Buddhist teachings on filial piety (illustrated) say it is nearly impossible to repay the gratitude owned to parents, because it is that much? Source:"Parents, in fact, do so much for their children that it is almost impossible to repay them adequately" (Ohnuma 2012, pp. 11–12)
  • ALT1:... that some Buddhists believe that all people have once been their parents in a previous life, and that liberating people from suffering is therefore a form of filial piety (illustrated)? Source:"Buddhism considers all kinds of service and help to sentient beings as filial piety. This is because Buddhism does not think of death as the end of life but as a change of form. ... Sentient beings wonder [sic] in the realm of samsara from the beginningless time until now, so that all other sentient beings may have been one's parents in past lives." (Xing 2013, p.18)
  • ALT2:... that some Buddhists prostrate for their parents out of filial piety (illustrated)? Source: "Bowing to statues of the Buddha or to Buddhist monks is fairly ubiquitous amongst Buddhists of all denominations. The practice of bowing to parents, by contrast, is only practised by some types of Buddhists ..."(Thanissaro 2015, pp.1–2)

• Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Samuel van der Putte
• Comment: All sources cited are accessible.

Improved to Good Article status by Farang Rak Tham (talk). Self-nominated at 20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC).

• The article was promoted to GA status in time. I assume good faith on the offline references. A QPQ has been completed. The image is free use. The article doesn't explicitly have the original hook, but I am approving ALT1 or ALT2. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)