The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just one statement in the intro that I feel needs a citation. Overall, I am quite pleased with the citations. I did not check every single reference, but all the ones I did all check out.
I have rephrased this, to fit in with the body of the text.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Apparently, Przyluksi discusses Neo-Babylonian influence, not Iranian. Directly cited and expanded now.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article and sources give mention to the 10 precepts; could expand to further delineate the differences between these two.
There are too little sources about this in English language. It could be done by someone familiar and versed in Chinese or Japanese-language scholarship, though. Not me.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 07:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Farang Rak Tham: Great job with the edits. It's looking more polished now. Just need a source to support the sentence in the intro that this was something that was practiced back in 7th-10th century China. I'll pass the article once that is done. Tea with toast(話) 21:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's already in the body of the text, Tea with toast. Under Eight precepts#History. It is therefore not required to put another citation in the lead. Unless you think it is controversial, that is.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 00:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the reviewer on his user page, and given him a deadline. He has not responded. Archiving and renominating.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk) 18:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.