Wikipedia:Peer review/Merit (Buddhism)/archive1

Merit (Buddhism)

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it is quite complete in it contents, but i think much can still be improved in the writing style, readability and accuracy. But any suggestions for improvements, whether in the contents or the editing, are all welcome.

The article has taken quite some of my time, as i think it is an important subject in many schools of Buddhism. It has also been assessed as top on the importance scale of several projects. I hope to upgrade the article to A, or even better still, to a featured article, with all of your help.

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap

This looks a very solid, well-constructed and well-cited article, so it should have little difficulty at GAN. You have indeed put a lot of work into it, and there's very little I could add. Here are a couple of minor suggestions.

• I'd suggest that the "Translations" box should include transliterations into English script for each line. Actually, the Pali and Sanskrit are provided as transliterations not translations, so these two languages should be provided with their language originals.

Good point, I'll see what I can find.

• This goes for any Thai, Burmese, Korean or other languages shown in foreign scripts in the main text: transliterations should be added. You might also consider adding the original appearances for Pali and Sanskrit terms if you want to be consistent! Alternatively you could replace the Thai original words with transliterations.

I might chose to transliterate everything, because the originals are much harder to find. I'll have to search around.

• The Sanskrit is not transliterated systematically. If you want to use the Anglicised forms, then these would be like Ashoka, not "Asoka"; if you want the more scholarly transliteration, these would be like "Aśoka". Similarly, we'd write Gautama Buddha in English, not "Gotama"; the Sanskrit is गौतम, the first vowel being marked with two little lines on top for "au" not a simple "o".

I am accustomed to Pali language, but I suspect Wikipedia leans more toward Sanskrit. I will try to see what I can do to solve this issue.

• The diagram with 3 boxes and 2 arrows could be clarified by going a little further. The Individual is not shown: you could use a simple image of a head, or of a stick-person. The individual's actions are not shown either; the individual takes actions, which cause the karma, which bring merit or demerit, which bring retribution to the individual. Thus I'd suggest the image is drawn as a wheel or cycle, starting and ending with the individual, rather than the incomplete straight line diagram shown.

Mm. This would require quite some artwork, not really my force. But maybe I can copy and paste something. Good point, though.

Thanks for all the tips, I'll rework the article in the days to come. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I have now added all scripts to the infobox, and removed all foreign scripts from the main body of the article, replacing them with transliterations. Please note that Asoka is Pali, whereas Aśoka is Sankrit.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now replaced the diagram following your suggestions. Let me know suggestions to improve the assessment of the article, Chiswick Chap.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hzh

I should first say that this is a well-written and referenced article. I should also say that I have only been able to check a few of the sources, and I would make the assumption that the article reflects what the sources say accurately, although it looks good to me. I don't think there is much more that needs to be done to improve it, so well done. I'll just add a few comments first, if I think of anything else, I'll add them later.

1. Ideally the first sentence should define the subject if it is possible. At the moment "a widely recognized concept in Buddhism" is too vague to be helpful given that the title already says Buddhism, so perhaps a clearer context on which the concept may be applied would be better. It is also better to refer to a source for the definition – in the definition section it says it is "a beneficial and protective force", in the lead it says "a power", I would choose something similar to the former if it is what the source says.
2. Although the article mentions the impact on the economy on some Buddhist countries, it doesn't tell me how it is "fundamental to the economies in these countries".
3. Avoid using "post-modern" or "(post-)modern" unless your sources specifically state it, it's one of those terms that makes good sense only in specific context.
4. A few minor copy-editing on a few sentences – for example the one that starts with "And Buddhist texts provide more details..." reads a little awkward.
5. I'm a little dubious about a number of assertions about China which I think no longer holds true .
6. The jstor number for the Bechert paper is 24659519.

Hzh (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hzh, thank you for the good tips! I'll work on it as soon as I can. --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hzh, I have made some edits following your suggestions:

1. I will give this some more thought. I have fixed the sentence about "power".
2. I will have to do some reviewing for this.
3. Removed.
4. Fixed. Any other parts need fixing?
5. I have mentioned the following things in the article:

• "In China, Thailand and India, it has been common to offer land or the first harvest to a monastery." --> I have changed this into "was common".

Other sentences which are about China:

• "Since the 2000s, studies in China have shown a growing interest among local government officials to promote merit-making activities, believing it to stimulate local economy."
• "The practice of recording merits has survived in China and Japan until the present day"
• "In China, other similar lists [of merit-making] are also well-known."

Please let me know which one you have your doubts about, so I can re-check and edit.

6. Thanks! --Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now replaced the sentences in suggestions nr. 1 and 2 by more specific information. Hzh, let me know if you have any other suggestions to improve the assessment of the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I would just concentrate on the opening paragraph for now -

1. I would add a semi-colon or "as" after "Merit-making is important to Buddhist practice" because too many short sentences do not read well.

Done.

1. Replace "pleasant" as it is an odd word to use (it does not sound academic in tone) in this context.

I have replaced it with agreeable and disagreeable.

1. Replace "has affected the rural economies in these countries much" with "has an impact on the rural economies in these country" or something similar. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention, bolding is used for the first occurrence of the word (the term about which the article is about, as well as redirected terms) per MOS:BOLD, therefore subsequent mention (i.e. the second "merit" and "merit-making") need not bolded. Hzh (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hzh and Chiswick Chap, if there is nothing more you would like to comment, I am moving on to applying for good article status.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Very good luck with it, the article is in fine shape. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the unnecessary bolding of the terms in parentheses after the first word "Merit", I don't see any obvious issue that needs fixing, although you can remove the red-linked "vernacular Pāli" unless there is an intention to create the article. I can give the Chinese title for "Ledger of Merit and Demerit of the Taiwei Immortal", but it is probably unnecessary as well. Good luck. Hzh (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hzh. I have now removed the redlink, which would probably not warrant a new article anyway.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)