Talk:Kaundinya/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Well-written and interesting, but based on only one RS, that is, Malalasekera, and that is a tertiary source. The other sources are all primary and not-RS. Moreover, the article offers little with regard to reflection, but only relates the traditional accounts, following mostly the Pāli tradition, without mentioning any other Early Buddhist Texts. Thus the broadness and verifiability criteria aren't met, and the article should therefore be delisted.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual for articles about Buddhism, no response has been given. I am delisting.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]