Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara
Old nomination was long and most of the comments there already addressed, so I'm restarting it. There appear to be language issues, but other than that, it seems almost ready to go. Raul654 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Maybe it needs some copyedit by editors who have not contributed to the article so far. IMHO, language issue can be better addressed by that way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The lead is short for an article of this size. Please read WP:LEAD and expand the lead a bit. --Maitch 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support The article is peer reviewed here. All the points from the peer review and the previous FAC nomination have been addressed. Also, a non fair-use image has been used. Babub→Talk 17:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, the lead is not a good summary of the article. See WP:LEAD.
- I might have missed it, but I couldnt find what language he spoke or wrote his books in.
- Are all the foreign terms sanskrit? If so, it needs to be mentioned somewhere.
- Would it be possible to mention in which language Shankara means "bestower of happiness"?
- Who wrote the Shankara Vijayams? When were they written?
- With King Sudhanva of Kerala as companion - Kerala did not exist until many centuries later. ~~Could you mention the name of the kingdom?
- Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya -should be italicised for clarity.
- Are any of his works still available in its original form?
- Could the ISBN number of Tapasyananda Swami's Sankara-Dig-Vijaya be given?
- Reply I have addressed 1 and 2. Yes all foreign terms are sanskrit. How could I include this in the article? I have addressed 4 and 5. The date of the Shankaravijayams would be proper in the article Shankara Vijayams. The name of the kingdom is not mentioned in the reference. So I reworded it as "the Malayali King...". I have addressed 7 and 8. 9 is already there :) Babub→Talk 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- More: Technically speaking, even "Malayali" would be incorrect, as Malyalam never existed at that time. But I think it is fine, as it could also refer to the ethinicity.(Please wikilink it to Malayali though) Leaning on support, but a few other points:
- In the Smārta tradition, Adi Shankara is regarded as an incarnation of Shiva. - There is a slight confusion caused here for people unfamiliar with Hinduism. Is Shankara considered as a God or a philosopher, or both?
- You mentioned the works are still extant. Where can an interested reader see them today?
- I'm confused at the liberal use of foreign terms in the article. For example, wouldnt saying Advaita Vedanta is based on scriptures/science, reason and experience, and aided by spiritual practices., be better than Advaita Vedanta is based on śāstra ("scriptures"), yukti ("reason") and anubhava ("experience"), and aided by karmas ("spiritual practices"). Is there any reason for using all the foreign terms, when there are words in English that can very aptly describe them?
- Vadakkumnathan (Vṛṣācala) Could you please confirm if the IAST is correct?
- -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK09:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done with "Malayali". 1) He is considered as an incarnation and worshipped in Smartism. But, his works are studied universally. So speaking from the Smarta view, he is an incarnation and obviously a philosopher. 2) More details regarding the numerous available editions of his works are at Works of Adi Shankara, linked from the relevant section of this article. 3) Well regarding the non-english terms, Adi Shankara's works are in Sanskrit. Frankly the English terms are just vague meanings. So it may be better if we give the actual terms he uses. 4) (Vṛṣācala) is given as "Vrishachala" in Tapasyananda's referenced book. I'll remove the IAST for now until I can confirm it. P.S. Your signature is making weird spaces appear on this page. Could you possibly shorten it? :) Babub→Talk 13:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Support - All my concerns have been met.--thunderboltz 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support per last nom. Rama's arrow 16:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, but only because I don't think WP copyright policy is officially met until a copy of the copyright release is sent to Wikipedia as well as the author who requested it. I think the image page must reflect this. Bureaucracy but needed. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC) OK, opposition withdrawn. I assume this should go thru with no problems. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please specify how to send a copy to Wikipedia? Is it ok if the copy of the mail (stating the copyright/photo use permission) is displayed in a user subpage?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Per who? Lol, thats HTML code. :) -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK06:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Cribananda 05:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)