Wikipedia:Peer review/Dhammakaya meditation/archive1

Dhammakaya meditation

.

Dear fellow Wiki contributors, I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to have some feedback on the writing and organization of the article. I also think it should be reassessed. Thank you!

Thanks, Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the great help you have given me at Proto-Indo-European religion, so I will attempt to give you as much feedback as I can. This is my first peer review as a reviewer, but I have now gone through three as a nominator, so hopefully that has given me some idea of how this process is supposed to work. I should warn you ahead of time that I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about dhammakaya meditation; my main areas of study are the classics and the Near East. Nonetheless, I think that reading through this article should be interesting and I look forward to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, that's all I ask. It is a bit of a specialized subject, so it is hard to find independent people to assess it. I welcome your outsider's perspective and input.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is my review of the body of the article. I am skipping over the lead for now. I will come back to it once I have read the whole article so that I will be able to determine if the lead is an adequate summary of the material contained in the rest of the article.

1. You mention a number of people, places, and texts throughout this article, but I do not know who, where, or what most of them are. Some of them are wikilinked, but others do not appear to have Wikipedia articles over them. You may want to clarify who, where, and what all these terms refer to.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Saying "He experienced a breakthrough in meditation" may be too overly promotional. You may want to try finding a more neutral way of saying this. Perhaps you could say, "He invented a new form of meditation," "He experienced what his followers have interpreted as a breakthrough in meditation," or something similar. It is fine if you say that his followers see it as a breakthrough in meditation, but the critics of the technique, who are mentioned in the final section of the article, would probably disagree with objectively calling it this.

This one was fixed before.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Visuddhimagga should be written in italics because it is the title of a long work.

Titles of religious works of major religions are not italicized per MOS:TITLE.

1. "...new evidence has been brought forward..." you may want to clarify who has brought this evidence forward.

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "C.E." should be written CE, per WP:ERA.

This was fixed before.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "...scholars have theorized that there is a common ancestry to be found..." seems to read rather rough. You may want to instead say something along the lines of "...scholars have theorized that the two disciplines may share a common ancestry..."

Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. It says, "As of 2008, there was no scholarly consensus yet as to the relation between Yogavacara and Dhammakaya," but, in the next paragraph it says, "this hypothesis has been refuted in favor of the Yogavacara hypothesis." This makes it sound like the Yogavacara hypothesis is the consensus. In this circumstance, you may want to clarify the nature of the scholarly discussion.

Done. For a large part rewritten now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "Meditation factory" should be written in double quotation marks, not single.

This is allowed for glosses per MOS:SINGLE.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. The f in "five hindrances" should not be capitalized because the term is not a proper noun, or at least judging from the article five hindrances.

Fixed before.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Once again, the article five hindrances does not use "five hindrances" as a proper noun, which means that the f and the h should both be lower-cased (unless the other article is wrong, but I do not think that is the case here).

Fixed before.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. "First Path" should be written in double quotation marks, not single.

Another gloss.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. There should be a comma after the clause "After practitioners have attained the Dhammakaya," or, at least there should be in American English, but I have gotten in trouble before because apparently English in other countries does not require commas as often as in American English and I do not know the comma rules for other varieties of English.

I believe British English is the same in this respect. Done.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. The article states that "Dhammakaya meditation at the higher levels is also described to bring forth abhinna, mental powers that can be used for the benefit of society at large.[6][56] Publications from Wat Phra Dhammakaya describe that Dhammakaya meditation was used during the Second World War to prevent Thailand from being bombed,[12][57] and used to extinguish the negative forces in the cosmos (Mara)." You should probably reword this to make it more neutral. This clearly describes an adherent's perspective. Instead of saying "...is also described to bring...," I would recommend saying "...is believed to bring..." Likewise, instead of "...from Wat Phra Dhammakaya describe that Dhammakaya meditation was used...," I would recommend saying, "...from Wat Phra Dhammakaya claim that Dammakaya meditation..." or something that at least conveys some level of skepticism. As it is worded right now, it makes it sound like there is incontestable proof that use of Dhammakaya meditation prevented Thailand from being bombed, which, of course, is an unverifiable claim.

Fixed before, but I have fixed another instance as well.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. The article in general, but the final section in particular, are very clearly written from the standpoint of a practitioner. You may want to include more information about criticism of the technique and make the final section less dismissive towards the criticism that is mentioned. For instance, the final two sentences currently read: "As is common with all meditation techniques that emphasize samatha, the technique has been commented on mostly from a modernist standpoint, criticizing an emphasis on pleasant feelings as opposed to wisdom. In response to this, practitioners of the technique often underline how the technique is capable of changing people for the better." This seems to dismiss the criticism out of hand without ever giving it any credence to begin with. Furthermore, you may want to tone down the statement that practitioners "...often underline how the technique is capable of changing people for the better." Instead, try saying something more along the lines of "In response to this, practitioners of the technique often argue that the technique is capable of changing people for the better." Also, it would be good to provide some evidence to support this argument rather than simply stating it as a bald assertion.

I think that the article is mostly very well-written and, although I am not expert on this subject, it seems to cover the topic fairly extensively. I think that the greatest problem with the article as it stands right now is merely the fact that it only seems to focus on issues from the perspective of practitioner and is often dismissive towards criticism.

I have been working on that. This part is difficult, since all discussion about Dhammakaya tradition tends to polarize. Let me know if you see any improvement in the article now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You asked for feedback on organization. I think that, as it is right now, the article is already fairly well organized, but what might make it better would be if you could turn the "Origins" and "Development until present" sections into subsections in a larger "History" section and then put the "Samatha stage" and "Vipassana stage" sections together as subsections under a larger "Technique" section. Then the "Discussion and Research" section could go at the end as a section to itself. Alternatively, you could split it into two sections: one on "Research" and another on "Discussion." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Done!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, thank you very much for all your feedback. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Wikiman5676, I might need your help on this list!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure I can help address a few of these issues Katolophyromai pointed out. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have looked back at the lead, now that I have reviewed the rest of the article. The lead does serve as an adequate introduction to the article, I think, but it does not really seem to summarize the contents of the whole article. Depending on what you are aiming for with the lead, you may want to consider tweaking it a little to make it more of a summary. I also think that the lead is slightly short for an article of this length. You may want to consider adding another paragraph or two to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have now considerably reworked it.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I do have a question. You asked for the article to be reassessed, but I have only been editing Wikipedia since November of 2016, so I am somewhat unsure of what the rules on this matter are. I am not a member of any of the relevant wikiprojects listed on the talk page. Am I allowed to assess the quality of this article or should I hold off on that for another editor? --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Katolophyromai, for all the valuable feedback, and thank you, Wikiman5676 for helping to take care of many of the issues on this article. As for Katolophyromai's question regarding assessment, strictly speaking you need to add your name to a participant list of one of the wikiprojects, but many people skip this step. Assessment rules for quality assessment are basically the same for all Wikiprojects, although there are differences in some of the checks and balances. In short, yes, you can assess, but you might want to put your name on anyone of the Wikiprojects this article is part of. Assessment can be done by anyone who hasn't been much involved in the writing of the article, so you are allowed to assess.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will examine the criteria and assess the quality of the article accordingly. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed a couple of pieces of advice that I haven't applied to the article yet. Will be working on that for the days to come.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Katolophyromai, I have made considerable edits to the article now, and hope to have integrated all your advice fully now. Let me know if you have to add anything else to further shape up the article to a higher quality class.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I am closing down this review for now. Thanks for all your efforts.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)