THE HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELIC PRESERVATION MUSEUM
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
Template No.: T125
Template Title: HERITAGE INTERPRETATION PEER REVIEW CHECKLIST
Related Research Case IDs / Cluster: ___________________________
Linked Templates / Policies: _________________________________
Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______
Prepared by / Role: _________________________________________
Office / Unit: ______________________________________________
Country / Location: _________________________________________
Confidentiality Level (tick one):
[ ] Internal only [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted / Sensitive
Use of this form (tick):
[ ] New case / action [ ] Follow-up [ ] Annual review [ ] Archive only
SECTION 1 – BASIC INFORMATION
1.1 Text Being Reviewed
Title / short name of text:
Type of text (tick):
[ ] Wall panel / label
[ ] Audio guide script
[ ] Guided tour script
[ ] Leaflet / brochure
[ ] Website / online text
[ ] Video narration
[ ] Other: _________________________________________________
Location / exhibit name:
1.2 Version Details
Draft version no.: _______________
Draft date: ____ / ____ / ______
Language(s): ________________________________________________
1.3 Reviewer Information
Reviewer name: _____________________________________________
Role / Position: ___________________________________________
Office / Unit (if any): ____________________________________
SECTION 2 – CLARITY CHECK
2.1 Language Level & Readability
[ ] Sentences are short and simple
[ ] Words are mostly B1 level or explained
[ ] Structure is easy to follow (clear start–middle–end)
[ ] Headings and sub-headings help understanding
2.2 Visitor Understanding
For general visitors, this text is:
[ ] Very clear
[ ] Mostly clear
[ ] Sometimes confusing
[ ] Often confusing
2.3 Clarity Issues Found
(Short notes – list 2–5 examples where clarity can improve.)
2.4 Suggested Clarity Changes
(Short, practical ideas – e.g. “Split this long sentence…”)
SECTION 3 – ACCURACY & DOCTRINAL SOUNDNESS
3.1 Factual Accuracy
[ ] Dates, places, and names seem correct
[ ] Relic type and history are correct (if included)
[ ] No clear historical mistakes found
3.2 Doctrinal Accuracy
[ ] Basic Buddhist ideas are correctly used
[ ] Relic meaning is described in line with Dhamma
[ ] No strong claim that goes against Sutta / Vinaya
[ ] No superstition or “magic claim” added as fact
3.3 Scriptural / Source Use
[ ] Scriptural quotes (if any) are used carefully
[ ] Sources are mentioned simply and clearly
[ ] No text is taken out of context in a harmful way
3.4 Accuracy Issues Found
3.5 Suggested Fixes for Accuracy
SECTION 4 – RESPECT & TONE
4.1 Respect for Buddha, Dhamma, Saṅgha & Relics
[ ] Tone is respectful and calm
[ ] Relics are treated as sacred trust, not as “show objects”
[ ] No jokes or light words about holy things
[ ] No feeling of selling or using relics for profit
4.2 Respect for People
[ ] No group (religion, ethnicity, gender, caste, class) is put down
[ ] Donors, local communities, and guardians are shown respect
[ ] Visitors are not made to feel ashamed or stupid
4.3 Tone Description
Overall tone feels:
[ ] Warm and welcoming
[ ] Neutral and factual
[ ] A bit cold or hard
[ ] Too emotional or pushy
Short note:
4.4 Respect Issues & Suggestions
Issues:
Suggestions:
SECTION 5 – PEACE, HARMONY & RISK CHECK
5.1 Peace Impact
Does this text:
[ ] Support peace and non-violence
[ ] Encourage kindness and understanding
[ ] Help reduce conflict around relics and heritage
[ ] Show care for many views inside Buddhism
5.2 Possible Risks
Does this text risk:
[ ] Creating fear (e.g. strong hell threats)
[ ] Creating conflict between temples or lineages
[ ] Creating conflict with other religions
[ ] Encouraging greed (for merit, blessings, money)
[ ] Encouraging hatred or blame
If any box is ticked, describe risk:
5.3 Suggested Changes to Support Peace
(Short, clear ideas to make the text more peace-supporting.)
SECTION 6 – HERITAGE INTERPRETATION QUALITY
6.1 Connection to Heritage & Place
[ ] Text explains the specific relic / site clearly
[ ] Local story and wider Buddhist story are balanced
[ ] Community role and history are honoured
6.2 Visitor Engagement
[ ] Text helps visitors to care about this heritage
[ ] Text links past, present, and future responsibility
[ ] Questions or reflections help visitors think deeply
6.3 Overall Interpretation Quality
[ ] Very strong – ready with small edits
[ ] Good – needs some changes
[ ] Mixed – needs big edit and support
[ ] Weak – should be rewritten
Short explanation:
SECTION 7 – SUMMARY & FINAL COMMENTS
7.1 Main Strengths of This Text
(2–5 short points.)
7.2 Main Areas to Improve
(2–5 short points.)
7.3 Overall Recommendation
[ ] Approve – use text with small corrections
[ ] Approve – after the suggested changes are made
[ ] Do not approve yet – major work needed
Short reason for recommendation:
SECTION 8 – FOLLOW-UP & APPROVAL
8.1 Actions Needed
Action 1: _________________________________________________
Responsible person: _______________________________________
Due date: ____ / ____ / ______
Action 2: _________________________________________________
Responsible person: _______________________________________
Due date: ____ / ____ / ______
8.2 Second-Level Doctrinal Check Needed?
[ ] No – peer review is enough
[ ] Yes – send to doctrinal advisor / committee
If yes, name of doctrinal reviewer / body:
8.3 Reviewer Signature
I confirm that I have read this text carefully and answered in good faith.
Signature: ___________________________
Date: ____ / ____ / ______
SECTION 9 – INTERNAL USE & ARCHIVE
9.1 Final Decision (by responsible manager / editor)
Name: _______________________________________________________
Role / Position: ___________________________________________
Decision:
[ ] Approved for use
[ ] Approved after edits (check again)
[ ] Not approved – return to writer
Signature: ___________________________ Date: ____ / ____ / ______
9.2 Archive Code / Digital Folder Path
Linked items:
[ ] Draft text file
[ ] Final approved text
[ ] T114 – Doctrinal Approval Form (if used)
[ ] Other: _________________________________________________
END OF FORM – T125 HERITAGE INTERPRETATION PEER REVIEW CHECKLIST
