Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Koan

Koan

This article explains the subject well, is objective, and is thorough.

• The references section was messed up by this edit and needs fixing. Gimmetrow 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object:
  • The references section needs to be fixed, as mentioned.
  • Although it's hard to tell in its current state, I believe more references will be needed.
  • The lead section is long, yet does not give the reader an adequate description of a koan. From one of the examples: is "A monk asked Tung Shan, 'What is Buddha?' Tung Shan said, 'Three pounds of flax'." the koan, or "What is Buddha?" together with the response "Three pounds of flax" the koan, or is just the question "What is Buddha?" the koan?
  • The Interpretation section seems more like a textbook than an encyclopedia article.

Pagrashtak 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Why? Because:

1. The lead section, as Pagrashtak points out, is long—too long, in fact—and quite unfocussed, rambling rather unsteadily from definition to example to history and back to definition, etc.
2. The layout of the "Examples" section is quite bad: rather than putting the information in the bullet beneath the example, it would be better to give that info in a footnote.
3. (And yes, by the way, the footnotes/references need to be redone, as they have been all but destroyed.)
4. The layout of "Roles of the koan in Zen practice" is also bad: long, unbroken paragraphs; bullets; a bit of unreferenced and possibly original research (the comparison with "Man's extremity is God's opportunity"); etc.
5. Some other bits and pieces in the rest of the article which I haven't the time to mention now.

Overall—sorry, but it just ain't ready yet. —Saposcat 06:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Reference section has been fixed and renamed "Notes"; but the article still requires a "References" section to collate all the references into one list. —Saposcat 10:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]