Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:22, 19 January 2013

Jainism 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: January 19, 2013.

	Jainism is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 17, 2012 Peer review Reviewed December 9, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 13, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jainism Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Religion / Eastern High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Template:WP1.0 Timeline Tracer (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

sect subsect tree

I have added collapsable sect-subsect tree in Denomination Section, based on reference book which is cited and also looked some books on Google Books to improve it. Please make suggestions and improve it further. -- Nizil (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Few Correction Required

One is Bahubali is not a Arihant. He is able overcome all 8 karmas. That I think need to be updated. Another issue is: Terapanth are worship Idols they are not against it. So I think this point should also be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.96.34 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also the mark: "According to Jainism, there are sixteen heavens in total." and its statement is wrong. There are seven heavens and not sixteen. Total fourteen levels, seven heavens and seven hells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.101.246 (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a debatable but jain cosmology shows, 16 Devlok ( Heavens)+ 5 Anudins + 9 Graiveyaks + 5 Anuttar = All considered as upper world ( urdhva lok). And 7 Hells (Narak) as a lower world. --Nizil (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/Jain_cosmology

Prose tag

The prose tag I added to the "Core beliefs" section was removed. I did not add the tag to detract from the article. I added the tag so that someone would improve the article. According to WP:PROSE, "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." There are some exceptions, but I don't see how this falls into any of them.

I've seen how a bullet list like can be improved by turning it into prose—even after initial reluctance from editors to undertake the project. Also, if this article were nominated as a Good Article or Featured Article, it would not pass. For example, it would fail Featured Article Criterion 1a.

Why should this list not be turned into prose IAW Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and the criterions we expect of our best work here? --Airborne84 (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no response for nearly a week, I will reinstate the tag, inviting an interested editor to transform the list into prose. --Airborne84 (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Airborne84, I just came online after a gap, and noticed that the tag has been reinstated. You have pointed out that there are exceptions to the prose rule - and rightly should be. I trust that this section is better presented in point form so as to highight the important bits of information to the reader with clarity.

Suresh Elangovan (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the listed exceptions in WP:PROSE before I posted the above and this section didn't seem to fall under any of them. I considered reworking the section into prose, but haven't had the time. Why don't we try this: I should be able to work on it in the next week or two. I'll rework the bullets into prose and we can discuss then. There's a lot of good material in this article and it could easily become a Good Article or Featured Article, but future edits need to align the existing material in the article with the GA and FA criterions. I hope this proposal is reasonable. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Your proposal is more than reasonable. I will be happy to contribute from my end, once the first draft is available. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First draft complete. I hope you find it acceptable and a general improvement. I'm sure you can improve it further since I am not an expert in Jainism—just an interested observer. Best, --Airborne84 (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article. Substantial work has been done to improve upon. I have read the first few main sections, and they have captured the essence of jainism without any bias.Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Jainism is not pantheistic

Jainism is not a pantheistic religion. I am changing it to 'transtheistic' which better suits it. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Article improvement

There are some areas that will need to be addressed in this article to improve it in the future.

1. It's too long at over 100,000 bytes. That creates problems for mobile users and those with slower connections. Consider breaking more lengthy sections into main articles and summarizing them here according to WP:SUMMARY. Consider also summarizing the current sections to be more concise. This page gives guidelines.

2. Its lede does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:Lede for details.

3. It uses lists where prose (WP:PROSE) may be more appropriate. The section on meditation is an example.

4. The sources are inconsistent. In some cases, only URLs are provided. Complete sources should be used.

5. It is not adequately sourced. Some sections with main articles are unsourced or have one or two sources. The sources from the main article should be used here as well so readers can reference them. There are also many lengthy sections with none or very few citations. Rather than placing "ref improve section" in many of these sections, I'll place that tag on the article. I encourage the editors here who have put a lot of work in the article to not see that as a detractor. It is intended to improve the article by inviting interested editors to provide the references which are necessary for a reader to take an article seriously and not question its reliability throughout. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of unrefrenced and unsourced section.

The sections which contains next to no sources or references should not be there in the article. I am deleting those sections. I request the editors to provide adequate reliable resources if they wish to undo it. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, you removed 35,000 bytes from the original article. Perhaps we could paste the deleted text in here and see if anything can be done with it? Narssarssuaq (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable. There are options within WP:PRESERVE besides outright deletion to consider. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Was there any point which was worth preserving in those articles I deleted? Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If properly referenced, I suspect the answer would be yes from some readers. --Airborne84 (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rahul, I've got a few points-

1. First of all, thank you for taking such a deep interest in articles that deal with Jainism, this will definitely help improve articles within the scope of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Jainism

2. It is important to note that edits by other editors are always assumed to be in good faith & it may not always be possible to find sources. Example, you added the entire section Jainism#Canonical_texts without a single source. But did any editor delete it? No. Did any editor ever even ask you to mention sources? Nope. I know what you added is true, but other editors may not know this, but they still took your edits in good faith, because we're building this encyclopedia together from scratch. The point is, sourcing stuff rather than outright deletion, is any day more constructive.

3. You also deleted some sourced stuff. Example-

Jains hold that owning an object by itself is not possessiveness; however, attachment to an object is possessiveness. Finally, Jains value the company of the holy and better-qualified, strive to be merciful to afflicted souls, and tolerate the perversely inclined.A major characteristic of Jain belief is the emphasis on the consequences of not only physical but also mental behaviours.

The above is a perfectly sourced paragraph. I could count at least 8 more such instances with a mere go through of the deletions.

4. Jainism is too vast for any of us to understand completely. We may have never heard of stuff mentioned in the articles or may even disagree. We may even find it hocus-pocus. But does that warrant deletion of that stuff? Nope.

5. Complete sections on Cosmology, Worship, Symbolism, Karmas etc. have been deleted. People come to Misplaced Pages to find info. There are 2 options- Unreferenced material put in by well-meaning editors (that can be sourced) vs. nothing. I'd go with the former.

6. There are very few contributors to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Jainism, there are even fewer editors who maintain these articles. This project has the least number of articles when compared with other religions. Yes, there is a problem with the info that is not presented in an encyclopedic manner. But deleting that info is not contributing to the solution, it is only increasing the problem.

I'm reinstating 26,500 characters of the deleted 45,500 characters. I haven't reinstated everything from every section, but only some parts from every deleted section so that we do not lose the essence of those sections and further build upon them. I haven't reinstated the names in diff languages.--Aayush18 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aayush. Although I haven't reviewed your reinstatements, I agree with the general thrust of the above—with some exceptions. The exceptions concern unreferenced material. In number four above, if the material we haven't heard of or disagree with is unsourced, it may be inaccurate. We can assume good faith for an edit that suffers from inaccuracy or is simply the experience of one person, but which is not representative of Jains all over the world, but that material won't improve the readers' knowledge (and may actually hinder it). In number five, it might be preferable in these cases to have no material. For example, I've seen material in other articles on religion that purported to represent all adherents, but actually expressed the apparently idiosyncratic viewpoint of one adherent in one denomination. In a case like this, the absence of the material may be preferable. That prevents readers from thinking the positions stated are actually held by all those within the tradition/faith when they are not. So, I agree there is middle ground better walked between deleting all and retaining all, but I strongly recommend providing reliable sources for all material retained or tagging unreferenced material/sections to alert readers and editors. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of 'Customs and practices' section and 'constitutional status'

I have made some alterations in the article and changed the overall look of it. I would like opinion of other editors on it.

I also plan to remove whole of the 'customs and practices' section and 'constitutional status' section. Customs and Practices section has next to none references. It also seems to be sect-specific rather than dealing with whole of Jainism in general. There is a lot of redundancy too, the fact that 'Jains are vegetarians' and 'Jains have influenced overall india' seem to be mentioned many times in the article. The small paragraph about 'constitutional status of Jainism in India' seems completely unnecessary in the Article. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for re-categorizing sections as 'Core Principles' and 'Doctrines', they make a lot of sense and are crystal clear. But let's not remove all the sections that have been removed. Currently, if a person were to stumble upon this article, they would get a good idea of all the philosophical aspects, however, they would not know if Jainism is a living, breathing religion, what has been its contribution to society, who are Jains and what is Jain life? These questions should be addressed. Let's reinstate (and remove the sect specific stuff)-

• Cosmology -> Non-Creationism
• Customs & Practices -> All the earlier subsections AND 'Worship and rituals' and 'Festivals' as 2 new subsections
• Geographical Spread and Influence
• Culture -> Add in info from 'Contributions to Indian culture' and 'Literature'
• Comparative studies -> New section with the first 3 paras from 'Jainism and other religions' and 'Constitutional status in India'. Check Buddhism.

Feel free to add sources and/or trim down the sections as you see fit (I've already trimmed the sections before adding them in), but let's not completely remove them. Also, let's give some more thought to the Illustrious Persons section.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I would rather not compare the article with Buddhism, its rated B-class like this one. The Bahá'í_Faith, religion which has almost same number of followers as Jainism, managed to get their article a 'featured-article' status. The overall structure of the article isn't appropriate. Help me organize this article and I'll try my best to cite references and sources. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright makes sense. I like your push for the 'Featured Article' status, let's get this done.--Aayush18 (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

• I do not agree with removal of Customs and practices. It summarizes primary aspects of Jain life. Festivals, worship methods (rituals), pilgrimage (holy cities like Palitana), monastic traditions, food habits are needed.
• Rename "Illustrious Persons" to "Deities". Do not list all Tirthankars. The first introductory para with Rishabha, Parshva and Mahavira is enough. Not sure Chakravarti, Baladeva, Vāsudeva and Prativasudeva is needed. Missing popular goddesses like Ambika, Padmavati.
• History only covers origins. Talk about its spread across India and then its decline, restricting it to primarily Gujarat and other pockets in small numbers.
• Section on Demographics: where are the most Jains, how are they distributed currently.

--Redtigerxyz 11:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Check my response above.--Aayush18 (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed lists

Following lists are removed.

1. Tirthankara
2. Chakravarti
3. Baldev trio

I suggest to make them hidden list same as "Jain sect" Tree. Is it OK? --Nizil (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that entire list of the 63 salakapurusha was not needed, therefore I removed it. I guess a hidden list should be good. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I am just working on hidden lists. I'l put them as soon as possible. --Nizil (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

All hidden lists added. Are they look OK? --Nizil (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the hidden lists Nizil. Would it be possible to remove the red dashed border and the blue background? And have a gray background as in the list for Baldevs? It'll be less flashy and more subtle.--Aayush18 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Red dashed border removed and grey background given to lists of Tirthankara, Chakravartins and Jain sects. I could not match them exactly to Baldeva as it is collapsabla table while others are collapsable text lists. But it looks better than before. Is it OK? --Nizil (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup it looks good!--Aayush18 (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Festivals section

This is long and detailed section. We already have separate detailed article on Jain rituals and festivals. Just put Main and summarize them here. It may seem better. --Nizil (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

How is it now? I have merged it with the section on worship and trimmed it a bit. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Its good. I am already expanding Jain rituals and festivals. When Its done I will inform you. You may edit section here according to that article. It would be possible to trim further after that. Regards --Nizil (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Jain rituals and festivals article expanded with citations. Please improve ritual and festival section according to it. --Nizil (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Suresh Elangovan (talk · contribs) 10:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC) I am planning to do my review and comments before end of Dec 2012.

This might be useful. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Very useful to go through other reviewers comments as well. I spent quality time this morning to review Jainism article. In my view, it meets all of the Misplaced Pages Good Article criteria provided. It is written in manual-style, without grammatical and spelling errors, factually accurate with conscious removal of natural bias that arise in subject matter of this kind, broad and at the same time covering the major points clearly. I did not find any original research or opinions included as part of this artice and it has got credible references to support the facts described, wherever required. Jainism is a major topic and it is impossible to cover all topics in this page - the expectation on the reader willbe that all major points covered. In that sense, a section on Jain Symbols is perhaps required to make it complete. Once that is done, I will be happy to mark it as Good Misplaced Pages Article. Thanks to you for the mammoth effort you have spent in getting to this stage. Well done. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 02:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have made a section on symbols as required. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

NOT A VALID REVIEWER

Unfortunately, per Misplaced Pages:GAN#How_to_review_an_article: you cannot review an article if you are the nominator or have made significant contributions to it prior to the review, Suresh is not eligible to review this article. You are the primary contributor to this article, having made 423 edits and must therefore immediately ask for a second opinion. JZCL 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

JZCL, off late I have not made significant contributions to this article and it is changed in terms of format substantially. I will request for a second opinion straight away as advised. Since you have already done one round of reviewing, will you be interested to do the review and comment? Thanks. Suresh Elangovan (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter when you made the edits, as you are still the main contributor to the article. It's about your interest with the topic. Your review and comments are appreciated, and if you enjoy carrying them out, why not review some articles in the GAN list that don't fall under your conflict of interest? JZCL 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I will ask for a change of reviewer. This seems more appropriate because the current reviewer is not valid. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

some type of nazis or what?

so the main image on the page has a SWASTIKA in and this is not mentioned or discussed anywhere? what's that all about? are these the "good nazis" or something? sort it out please it is unacceptable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.8.209 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no connection between Jainism and Nazi. Swastika is considered auspicious symbol in Jainism. See aricle on Swastika for detail. --Nizil (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

This does raise an important issue here. Many readers from the Western World are not familiar with the other connotations of the Swastika, and tend to associate it with the Nazis. I suggest that we add another line in the lead liking to the Swastika article, and explaining why it was chosen as the symbol for Jainism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Better add the information to Swastika article where it should not be. This article should not be linked to racist and anti-sematic barbarism that is Nazism.111.91.75.62 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FA Review

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 15:29, 13 January 2013 .

Jainism

Nominator(s): Rahuljain2307 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been improved substantially since last review. It has addressed all the issues raised and now meets the criteria for FAC. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose regretfully. I can see the article has improved a lot, but unfortunately, and typically, all the previous FAC comments concerned technical matters of referencing rather than the actual content, which I don't think is at FA standard. Indian religious philosophy is notoriously difficult to write about for a general mostly Western readership, and I don't think this article pulls it off in various places.

• There is a general problem with the history. The article starts by saying in the lead: "Jainism has its roots in the Indus Valley Civilization, reflecting native spirituality prior to the Indo-Aryan migration into India." which is a somewhat bold statement, and misleading without qualification and reference to wider shramana traditions, which comes in the next sentence, but with an unclear connection to this. The link to shramana is earlier, hidden away in "Ancient texts also refer to Jainism as shraman dharma (self-reliant)". All of this needs setting out more clearly as soon as it is introduced, and the implication that all the shramana traditions can be treated as Jainism or proto-Jainism should either be set out clearly, or modified. A, even the, key explanatory point as far as the recoverable history of Jainism is concerned then appears in the next section on non-violence, more fully than in the actual history section, which doesn't connect the various early periods it mentions, and is written pretty chaotically. The first para of the "comparative studies" section, right at the end, contains key information that should be at the start of of the history section, or even in the lead.

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• "Ahimsa (non-violence) is the heart of Jainism" - well sort of, but is this the best way to describe Jain philosophy? It is certainly the most distinctive and best-known aspect of Jain religious practice, but that's not the same thing. To me it seems a bit like saying "Wearing 18th century styles of clothing is the heart of Amish religion". The next sentence is "The understanding and implementation of ahimsa is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive than in any other religion." which miught be true, although in the past Jains have not shrunk from military activity, which other religious groups have.

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• the timing and causes of the relative decline of Jainism in India are not covered at all. Or has it always been a merchant-class religion with a very small proportion of the total population?

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• I notice that much of the article contains the same text as other articles on the different aspects - I don't know what the direction of travel has been, but reading the article does not contradict the impression that it is something of a patchwork of bits from elsewhere.

• What solution do you propose?

Only general improvement, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• No mention of Jain art and architecture, for which we don't have any main articles beyond Jain temple.

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

Ok, really only covers architecture, & in a rather muddled way. I might add some myself. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• There are probably too many references, not all of good quality. Robinson and Voorst appear to be secondary school textbooks. I don't like links to Amazon pages about a book with no preview. Equally most points here could surely be referenced equally well to 5 or 6 of the better books. better to pick 3 or so main good refs & do the basic stuff to them.

• I think that the large scope and size of the article justifies the number of references. -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Is it right that the priests at Jain temples are traditionally Hindu Brahmins? Worth mentioning if so.

Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed most of the points you raised. The lead section now clearly mentions about the Shramana tradition and its relation with Jainism. I have made a small section on the art/architecture and the decline of Jainism in India. The number of references are justified by the size and the scope of article. I am not aware of any such information that the priests at Jain temples are traditionally Hindu Brahmins. However, if you can find a reliable source for that, I'll make sure it is mentioned in the appropriate place. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On the last point, try p. 170 in your source Jainism: The World of Conquerors, Volume 1, By Natubhai Shah - doesn't exactly say what I did, but getting there. There are other points in this section that could be covered. Johnbod (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added information about priesthood in the section on monasticism. That should be sufficient, I think. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - I commend your efforts in taking on an article of this magnitude, but unfortunately I disagree that it currently meets FAC criteria. Some specific points for further improvement:

• General copy-editing needed for prose quality, clarity and flow. For example, "Whereas consumption of most terrestrial vegetables doesn't kill the plant" is not a complete sentence, while "The symbol of hand" is not grammatically correct

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - those specific examples have been edited but were examples only. A thorough copy-editing for quality and clarity is needed. For example, "converted many Jains to Muslim by his fluency" is both ungrammatical and unclear

• WP:MOS cleanup is needed - hyphen/dash confusion, use of contractions outside quotes, etc

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - contractions are gone, but again this was only an example of issues. Other examples include hyphens/dashes (still) and treatment of numbers in-text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Pick one variant of English and stick to it - for example, you've currently got both "behaviour" and "behavior"

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - eg behaviour vs harbor, civilization vs organisation, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Check automated suggestions here - includes dead link and double redirect

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - still lists issues, including a disambiguation link that should be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Many inconsistencies in reference formatting - changes in date format, missing dates or publishers, etc

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - multiple inconsistencies remain. Compare for example FNs 110 and 111, or 137 and 145, or Adiga and Banerjee. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Use of sources of uncertain reliability, like Goodreads

• Done -Rahuljain2307 (talk · contribs)

• Not done - for example, what makes this a high-quality reliable source? What is the background of the author(s)? What is its editorial / fact-checking policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Problems with images - India does not have freedom of panorama for engravings and Belgium doesn't have it at all, File:Kharavela-Kingdom.GIF lacks a source and is tagged for disputed accuracy, Double-sided leaf lacks a US PD tag, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Still problems here - unclear and ungrammatical captions, File:Jainsects.PNG and File:Jain_universe.JPG need sources for the information they represent, File:Shantinatha.jpg contains engraved art despite lack of FOP in India for such, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As per your suggestions, I have made changes in the article. Some copy-editing was done to make the article grammatically correct and to improve its quality. Contractions outside quotes are now removed. British English seems more appropriate for Jainism, hence I have changed -or to -our. Removed the dead links, double redirects and unreliable citations. Almost all of the references use the same template, so the issue of reference formatting should not be there. I have reorganized the images. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, but I'm afraid that problems persist here so my oppose will stand for now. You might consider seeking an independent copy-editor to help you with the prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Johnbod and Nikkimaria. I popped down the page and the first thing I found was "Meditation in Jainism aims at taking the soul to status of complete freedom from bondages." A thorough independent copyedit is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is probably accurate in the special sense of "bondages" given elsewhere in the article, but I agree it is not clear. Buddhist material usually uses "attachments" for what is maybe the same concept; not sure if that is worth using, or at least giving as an alternative. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. Is "status of" not redundant in this context? Some of it reads like psychobabble and it's hard for the non-initiated to know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, on both points. I have been reading around a bit & I think the material is generally accurate, but as I said in starting my comments, it's really difficult to convey Indian philosophy to a Western audience. Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have made the required changes in the section on meditation. It should be clearer now. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate query -- Three early opposes but no suggestion to withdraw; is current consensus that improvement to FA-quality is possible in a relatively short time, or rather that the nom should be archived and work done away from FAC before another try? Talk to me, people... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know you waited for "withdrawal" declarations ... I always acted on the principle that whenever a nomination had demonstrably not addressed previous issues, it was automatically archived per the FAC instructions (which state that previous issues must be addressed before nom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Granted, Sandy, but a) withdrawal recommendations have been common in similar situations at least in the time I've been on the job and b) I don't see anyone above clearly stating that their opposition is due to the nominator having "demonstrably not addressed previous issues" -- I am on the go at the moment, so did I miss that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. Last time only referencing points were really raised, which I admit I haven't examined much. Sandy recommended withdrawing & doing a peer review, but one had just been done before, with no comments at all, so I can't blame the nom for not doing another. This time reviewers are getting round to prose & content, effectively the first real examination this has had at PR/FAC. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, crud, Ian ... my apologies ... I was confusing this with another FAC I had just reviewed, where it had been mentinoned that previous issues had not been addressed (and which I believe you archived). My bad. Johnbod is in better position to evaluate whether issues here can be addressed in the course of a FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ian, how long is "relatively short"? The nominator is obviously willing to work on issues, but said issues are still considerable (and possibly require the involvement of helpers other than the nominator). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "relatively short" in FAC-time for me is a couple of weeks or so, and it looks like there's still a good deal of progress to be made a week after my query. I can see that despite the nominator's efforts to action your objections they effectively all remain, as do Johnbod's and Sandy's. I will be archiving this now and suggest that, once further work has been done (including an independent copyedit and/or input from Johnbod if he's willing and able), if Peer Review has been a dead-end previously then the FAC reviewers could be contacted to offer their opinion on whether concerns have been addressed before the article is renominated (which in any case must be at least two weeks after this current nom has been archived). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

1. Jain, Dulichand (1998). Thus Spake Lord Mahavir, Sri Ramakrishna Math Chennai. p. 69. ISBN 81-7120-825-8.
2. Prof. S.A.Jain. Reality – English Translation of Sarvarthasiddhi by Srimat Pujyapadacharya, 2nd Edition, p. 195.
3. {{cite book − |last = Tobias − |first = Michael − |title = Life Force. The World of Jainism − |publisher = Asian manush Press − |year = 1991 − |pages = 6–7, 15 − |location = Berkeley, California − |isbn = 0-89581-899-X − }}

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Jainism articles
• Top-importance Jainism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• High-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• B-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• High-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject India articles