Talk:Maitreyi
![]() | Maitreyi has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 17, 2016. |
![]() | Maitreyi was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 16, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | A fact from Maitreyi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Mythological basis
The article goes too far in implying that Maitreyi was a historical figure and the facts of her life are established. This is not so. Like Yajnavalkya, if Maitreyi existed at all, her biography was subsequently embellished and idealized for poetic and spiritual reasons. To imply that the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad records a historical moment and transcribes a real conversation is not supported by scholarship or common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.200.46 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't write this article and so can't comment on the accuracy of what you state, but if you have any reliable third-party sources mentioning that Maitreyi was not a historical figure please add them to the article. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Picture of Sanyasi
The picture of a sanyasi has no relevance to the topic at hand. It should be removed.
198.203.177.177 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- The concept of a sanyasi is referred to in the text in the section where the image appears. — SMUconlaw (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Maitreyi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm no expert on Hinduism or Indian history but this seems to be a fascinating subject so I'll give the article a review if I may. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Comments: At present, some of the language veers into slightly non-neutral territory, particularly when dealing with issues of religion and spirituality. For instance, statements like "She was a spiritual person dedicated to the worship of God" reads as a bit too adulatory and could be rephrased. Moreover, shouldn't the term "God" link to an article on Vedic theology or something of that nature? Another example of this is the wording about the fact that she was "able to discuss the highest spiritual truths of life"; again, this wording appears to suggest that there is an objective validity to Vedic concepts of the "spiritual truths of life", which isn't a neutral perspective. This could definitely be rephrased to avoid this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- The above sentences have been deleted as the reference was not proper.Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Related to this question of neutrality, I worry that Maitreyi's biography is presented uncritically. The amount of detail about her life seems astonishing for someone who lived thousands of years ago! How do we know that this information is historically accurate? What are the textual sources from which this information was obtained and when were they written? Let's get some source criticism in here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- More sources have been added and relevant texts have been mentioned. Appreciation section has been added now.--Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend adding more citations into this article. For instance, there is a tendency only to place a citation at the end of a paragraph, whereas ideally there should be one at the end of every sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- A number of additional books of reputed authors have been added.Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The images used are fine but could perhaps be improved. Do we have any images depicting Maitreyi herself? Moreover, with the Sarasvati image could we improve the caption by describing when the image was created? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- One img has been deleted because of poor quality. Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The article is quite brief and I suspect that it could be lengthened. For instance, surely there is more information on the reception and impact of Maitreyi in modern India and Hinduism? We could definitely do with some information on the historical sources from which her life has been reconstructed; we give her biography but don't explain where that biographical information originally comes from. This is not a prerequisite for passing at GA level but should be borne in mind, particularly if you want to take this article on to FAC in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Issues have been elaborated now. Date have been revised as there is no acceptable dates.Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Midnightblueowl Thanks for the review. All issues have been addressed by me and User:Ms Sarah Welch. Substantially expanded too. Will be happy to comply with any additional comments. I hope it meets your expectations.Nvvchar. 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Further comments: As you have made some significant changes to the prose to the article, I shall give it a re-read through and see if there are any additional points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Was Yajnavalkya a "Hindu sage"? As I understand it, Hinduism did not exist during this period but is a later development that emerged from the Brahmanical response to Buddhism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- He was a Vedic period sage. Clarified.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I am okay with this change. But "Vedic Hinduism" is a well accepted terminology, see Witzel for example. Etymologically, the first use of the English-language terms Greek and Greek philosophy are traceable to 14th century, the terms Christianity and Christian philosophy is traceable to early 16th century, the terms Buddhism, Zen and Buddhist philosophy to 18th century, and so on. The term Buddhist, amongst other things, includes all literature and scholars before the word Buddhism appeared in 18th century, same has been the practice with respect to the terms Hindu and Hinduism. Yajnavalkya is referred to as an ancient Hindu sage (see Judith E. Walsh (2006), An Anthology of Bengali Domestic Manuals, ISBN 978-8190227230, page 235). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- He was a Vedic period sage. Clarified.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- "She was the second wife of the..." according to whom? This could be reworded to say something like "According to the x ancient text, she was the second wife of the..." Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Clarified with a reference.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The lead does not summarise the wider contents of the article, as per WP:Lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Summary from the text added in the lead.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Should "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" be italicised throughout or not? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Probably it is to be done only once in the artcile.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Standardise the references. We currently have Frits Staal's book being listed in a manner dissimilar to the other citations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Frits reference converted into a standard format.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- "Maitreyi's early life is unclear"? Where's the citation for this? Every statement made in the main body of the article needs a citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sentence deleted.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- The prose needs some serious attention to improve its clarity. "In Grihya Sutras of Asvalayana," - what is this? Remember that most readers won't know much about all of these Vedic texts. Make sure that they are correctly linked and italicised. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Now linked.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- "According to Robert Van De Weyer..." Who is he? Why does his opinion matter? The same goes for Max Muller. Make their identities explicit so that the average, non-expert reader won't have any problem in understanding. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- Explained.
- Midnightblueowl. Thanks for the additional review comment. We have now addressed all issues.Nvvchar. 05:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There are still a fair number of issues here. While there have been improvements in the use of sourcing, the prose really isn't up to GA quality. There are still references to specialist terms (for instance, "the Madhyamdina and Kanva Vedic schools") which are not linked or explained, and I'm not sure that a non-specialist reader would be able to fully understand a lot of it. Sections such as "Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue" switch from past to present tense and back again. There are various instances or poor or incorrect grammar and punctuation. The references are not formatted uniformly. This being the case, I would not be happy passing this as a GA at this time, and so I will fail it for now. I would suggest that you take the article to Peer Review to ask for an un-involved editor to take a look at the prose before nominating it as a Good Article again. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Midnightblueowl May like to re-review. Renominated after review by Guild of Copy Editors.Nvvchar. 04:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Commentary
While copyediting this article, I got stuck with the 1st para of Commentary, as I found it confusing. Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue by Hino is a translation and explanation of the Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue part of Suresvara's larger work Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika. The Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika is a commentary (vartika) on Adi Shankara's vartika on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.
- In the Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue (a doctoral thesis by Shōun Hino), the prime doctrine of Yagnavalkya's philosophy is discussed by Suresvara a disciple of Adi Shankara:
- How can the 8th century Suresvara discuss in the modern work Sureśvara's Vārtika on Yājñavalkya–Maitreyī Dialogue? Should the original 8th century be noted, rather than Hino's translation.
- The "According to Adi Shankara ... " seems to be from Adi Shankara's vartika on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (BU)
- this chapter 2.4/ chapter 4.5 - is it referring to BU or Adi Shankara's vartika? Probably the latter chapter 4.5 is BU, guessing from the quote. Please check
- Shankara states that "the truth of the Brahman is ascertained on the authority of the Sruti verse. .. The Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue is noted in Sureśvara's Vārtika, states Hino, as re-asserting the Hindu tradition in the Sruti, -> Is Sruti part Shankara's view (translated by Hino) OR Hino's original view? Please check in the reference.
Also, "Suresvaracharya Vartika 68-69", there is no text called Suresvaracharya Vartika. The verse number may be part of Hino's translation number scheme or Bŗhadāraņyakopanişadbhāşyavārttika.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Redtigerxyz: Indeed that section was confusing. I reworded it a bit after rechecking the source. You and @Nvvchar should feel free to revise and improve it further. Both the verse 36 in Sanskrit of original Vartika, and Hino translation, are indeed referring to Sruti, and it is the Vartika's view. Yes, Vartika is a secondary commentary on another secondary work (bhasya), as are Tika and other genre of ancient/medieval Indic texts. But, their Vartika and Tika and such texts typically followed certain ancient scholarly traditions – they included ukta, anukta and durukta; which are respectively "a review of what was said in the text by the previous author", "a review of what was not said in the text by the previous author", and "an analysis of what was improperly said in the text by the previous author". Thus, a Vartika may present fresh ideas or perspectives, and it is important to attribute properly and clarify in the Maitreyi article who is saying what in the Vartika. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Midnightblueowl. All issues mentioned above have been addressed. May please see.Nvvchar. 08:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Maitreyi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I plan to review this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reopened - as I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The GA1 issues were previously addressed and the article has been looked over for improvements by Guild of Copy Editors, and then renominated. There was little I could see for additional improvements.
- Bibliography
Since the books by Maguire and Murcott and Sachau are not used for inline references, should they be moved to the "Further reading" section?
@Ms Sarah Welch:@Nvvchar:@BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from others
I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section and Early life; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them. Because this had a previous GA review, I may be referencing issues raised in the course of it.
Lead section
- "Brihadaranyaka Upanishad" is wiklinked twice, and only put in italics once. All texts should probably be in italics. There may be some that should be in quotes rather than italics—sections or very short works, perhaps—so query if you aren't sure. This needs to be done throughout the article, not just here.
- Done -NVV
- Yajnavalka is spelled this way here, but "Yagnavalka" in places in the article's body. Please go with the former spelling.
- Spelled Yajnavalkya throughout the article -NVV
- There are still seven instances of the "Yagnavalka" spelling. Please fix them all. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Spelled Yajnavalkya throughout the article -NVV
- Indeed. Fixed all 7. - MSW
- in paragraph 1, sentence 2, the date range would be better displaced to the end of the sentence (Yajnavalkya is more important than his dates): "one of two wives of the Vedic sage Yajnavalkya; he lived from 8th- to 7th-century BCE."
- Right. Done -NVV
- You may have displaced it, but you didn't revise the text as I suggested. Please complete the fix, and make it also to the like phrase in Early life. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Right. Done -NVV
- Atman is also spelled "Ātman" in the article body. Please pick one version and use it throughout.
- Spelled "Atman" throughout.
- Unfortunately not quite. Also, I wonder whether "Atman" needs to be used quite as often as it is, or its translation. It seems like practically every time "soul" is used, Atman has to be specifically noted (and vice versa), and I'm wondering why. Alternatively, once you define Atman, it should be usable without translation unless its meaning varies depending on the context. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Spelled "Atman" throughout.
- I has noticed the same issue, before the reminder, and removed almost all of them. I left the first instance for definition, and a second instance much later for it gave poetic balance to that sentence, with "Brahman (ultimate reality)" that follows. In a few cases, where the source uses "self" or "soul" for Atman, I let it be used interchangeably, just like WP:RS rarely do. - MSW
- The ten hymns starting the second paragraph are only mentioned there and in the manuscript caption next to it; these need to be written about in the body of the article, and you need a source for this material.
- Mentioned in the body of the article.
- I think "Approximately" might be better than "About"; even "Around" would be (since it's more commonly used with quantity). Without a source, I can't fully judge what might be best.
- Fixed. - MSW
- There are nine separate inline citations in the lead; these should all be mentioned and cited in the body of the article (with the possible exception of the "friendly one" cite).
- Except the first ref all others in the lead shifted to the body of the article with additiona tetx as necessary. - NVV
- final sentence in second paragraph: I think adding "to be" before "the quintessence" is appropriate: does anyone actually use "quintessence"? If so, consider quoting it; if not, then it may run afoul of MOS:WTW, one of the GA criteria.
- Chnage to "crux". - NVV
- "has spawned analysis": how much of it? I get no sense as to whether there are a few including Sureshvara, an extensive literature of analyses, or some gradation in between.
- Corrected -NVV
- third paragraph: "a number of educational institutions are named in her honour": the body of the article only lists one; without more there, you'll need a citation here
- Changed to one institution on New Delhi - NVV
- New request: "Rigveda" was in italics in both this section and the caption; now it is just in italics (twice) in the caption. Why do you believe it should not be in italics? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Fixed. - MSW
Early life
- Is there a reason why "Asvalayana Gṛhyasūtra" is not italicized? From what I can tell, it almost certainly should be.
- It was missed. Done now. -NVV
- Second paragraph, last sentence: rather than "In the epic", I'd suggest "In the latter"—that way, it's clear instantly to the reader that you're referring to the Mahabharata without having to click on the links to find out which is the epic. (The GA1 review mentioned specialist terms, which I think also extends to specialist knowledge, such as what is an epic and what isn't: these articles need to be accessible to people who don't know about India and its historical and spiritual writings and people.)
- Changed.-NVV
- as mentioned in the Lead section, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad should be in italics throughout, and Yagnavalkya should be changed to Yajnavalkya everywhere.
- Done -NVV
- I've fixed two instances of the former, which was not done in this section. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done -NVV
That's it for now. More to come later in the week. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch. Please see my replies before confirming full compliance.Nvvchar. 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nvvchar: The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is linked to the White Yajurveda, not the Rigveda. I clarified the 10 hymns part, and added a source. I also made some additional changes. @BlueMoonset: Go ahead the next round of comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- New comment: the second paragraph is self-contradictory: it says that Matreiyi was married according to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, but never marries according to the Mahabharata (is there a reason this isn't in italics). However, in the very next sentence, it goes on to say that in the latter (Mahabharata), "though it is said that she was one of two wives of Vedic sage Yajnavalkya of the 8th–7th-century BCE". Those are self-contradictory things from the same source, and this contributes to a general level of confusion in this paragraph that needs to be straightened out. Also, the quote beginning with "discoursing" is missing its closing quotemark. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Maitreyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue
- paragraph 2, sentence 1: please displace the parenthetical 700 BCE dating to the end of the sentence; I think it would be better removed from the parenthesis there.
- Done. - MSW
- in the paragraph immediately after the first block quote, "Atman" is wikilinked for a second time in this section. Please go through the article and eliminate duplicate links: general rule allows once in the lead and once in the body, but no more than that.
- Fixed, along with a few others. - MSW
- next paragraph: since you've already established in the third sentence that Sureshvara dates from c. 750 CE, you don't also need to describe him as "eighth-century" in the following sentence.
- Indeed. Corrected. - MSW
Nature of love
- the quote doesn't quite work as a parallel: I think it would if the end of the first sentence paralleled the end of the second: "a husband is dear" (adding "is") to match "a wife is dear". You can try another change if it better fits the original text, but I suspect this will be best. Also, you have that accented "Atman" here, which doesn't match the other iterations of the word.
- Indeed. Corrected. - MSW
- this is another section where parenthetical explanations of Atman, soul, and self, feel repetitive. See whether some can be eliminated.
- Eliminated it, and a few more. - MSW
- "Concluding his dialogue" sentence: why is "inner-self" hyphenated?
- Fixed. - MSW
- "In Weyer's interpretation": is this of the just-completed quote, or covering more of the text than that? I think this needs to be clarified; in addition, probably "the soul" rather than "soul"
- Removed. Unnecessary and out of place it felt. @Nvvchar: please add it back if you want. - MSW
- "After Yagnavalkya renounces his previous life, Maitreyi also becomes a sanyassini". Well, since Yajnavalkya becomes a "sannyasi" (male), it isn't "also" with Maitreyi unless you recast the sentence. You also need to be consistent in your use of roman and italics: the stages of Yajnavalkya's life are in roman (and should probably be italic) while with Maitreyi it's italic. Also, if you do use the word for Maitreyi, please spell it in the same manner: if a double-n "sannyasi", then make it a double-n "sannyasini" (use the spellings in the sannyasa article).
- Fixed. - MSW
Legacy
- before "mentioned", I'd insert something like, "who is also", since we've been discussing her in the context of Upanishads and epics.
- Done. - MSW
- for the final sentence, I'd recommend revising "She has a college in New Delhi named after her, and the Matreyi Vedic Village is a retreat location in Tamil Nadu." with "A college in New Delhi is named after her, as is the Matreyi Vedic Village, a retreat location in Tamil Nadu."
- Agreed, that is better. Done. - MSW
That's the end of a first pass at a review of the article, with additional comments on the first two sections and initial ones on the rest. I expect there to be a second pass once the edits on this round are complete. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Thanks again. @Nvvchar: please review, particularly the Mahabharata-related and Weyer-related edits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch, thanks. I should point out that there were a couple of issues and a new request in the Lead section that have not yet been taken care of. All of them are individually signed and dated 1 April. Let me know when they're ready. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I did not even read those, sorry. Thank you for the reminder. I will take a look. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I took care of those, I think, and a bit more. As I combed through the article, encouraged by your comments, I added a source for 8th-century BCE date. Removed the unsourced 1100-500 BCE range. Let us just stick with the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch, thank you. The article is getting better and better, and is very close to being a GA in my opinion. I've just made a few more copyedits, which I hope have not been contrary to facts.
- There is one thing that puzzles me, in the section about the Matreiyi-Yajnavalkya dialogue. Near the end of the main section, before "Nature of love" begins, there's a quote presumably said by Yajnavalkya within a blockquote from Sureshvara, but the quote is really all that's there. I initially thought this was quote by Yajnavalkya from the Brihadararanyaka Upanishad that's in a section of Sureshvara's work (thus a quote from one work in the later work), but it appears instead to be a recasting of the original in Sureshvara's own words, unless it is something else entirely. If a recasting, then it might help to clarify this, pointing out what it is (and use your own words, because I'm sure you understand it far better than I do): an elaboration on the original, retaining the dialogue form, so that Yajnavalkya and Matreiyi are "speaking" here, too. Sureshvara seems to complete commenting on 2.4.3 in verse 63, and is working on 2.4.4 before, during, and after the quoted verses 68 and 69. Perhaps, rather than "Sureshvara wrote," before the quoting of those verses, you could instead point out that this is an elaboration on what Yajnavalkya said in the previous quoted section, and thus remove "Yajnavalkya:" from within the quote, since it isn't actually in the book. (You may or may not wish to mention that this is Hino's translation of the Brihadaranyakopanishadbhashyavarttika.)
- This does bring up a minor issue: the Hino source is listed under both the Bibliography and Further references sections. Per WP:LAYOUT, one of the MOS sections that GAs must adhere to, Further references should not include references that have also been cited in the article text. So please remove Hino from the Further references section, which would depopulate that section and lead to its removal as well. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Your copyedits were fine and helpful. Indeed, Sureshvara-related summary was a confusing chunk of the text. I reread the sources, then wrote it, added Pechelis source for NPOV, embedded the quote, clarified what is Hino's translation as you suggested, and made other revisions. So you may want to re-review the last three paragraphs of the sub-section before "Nature of love" subsection. I also removed the duplinks to address the WP:LAYOUT issue. Thanks again for all the helpful comments. @Nvvchar: Since you had written parts of this section, some of which I have replaced, please check/revise, and then let @°BlueMoonset if you are okay with the rewritten parts of the section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch BlueMoonset. The changes you have made are fine with me. I have nothing more to add.Nvvchar. 02:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, it looks quite good. Thanks for the careful work, and to Nvvchar for reviewing the changes. I've just made some minor edits to the text and the large note, which I hope do not do any violence to the facts. I found the new material on Adi Shankara in the third paragraph of interest. It's a tad odd discussing his disciple Sureshvara in the second paragraph, and then Shankara in the third paragraph, but it may not make sense to reverse them given the flow of the underlying ideas. I'll want to read through the whole again, but I think we're just about done. Thank you for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Your edits are fine and an improvement indeed, and consistent with the sources. I just changed one spelling. Thanks @Nvvchar for reviewing the changes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Bibliography
Shame on me, that I hadn't looked at this section before. There are a few unusual things I noticed that should be adjusted:
- Several of the cited books have full dates of publication, down to the actual day. This is very unusual for books: typically, only the year is given. How have you sourced these full dates?
- @Nvvchar: you answer, the how. For now, I changed date to year. - MSW
- The Hino edition that is linked is the second edition (first edition is dated 1982; second edition 1991), and since Hino refers to it being a "newly revised print", if this was the source used, the entry for it needs to specify that this is the second edition, and probably just give the year (though in the date field rather than the year field per the cite book documentation).
- Done. - MSW
- The Doninger is a 2010 paperback reprint of the 2009 hardcover; as the copyright year is unchanged, the text should be as well. The pagination could have changed, however, so be sure to reference the 2010 paperback while noting this is a 2009 book. Also, give the full correct name of the publisher, Oxford University Press, not "OUP Oxford".
- Done. Add 2009/2010 pbk into title. Change it if there is a better way. - MSW
- Alberuni's India is a modern facsimile reprint of an 1888 book in two volumes, which was reprinted in both 1993 and 2004. The fact that this is volume 2 is crucial and must be added, since each volume has its own pagination starting with page 1. The original publication year of 1888 has to be included, as well as the reprint year of the edition you're referencing.
- Not used in this article. Removed. - MSW
- I haven't checked all of the bibliography entries for discrepancies such as the ones above; please make your own check accordingly.
If dates (years) change per the above, be sure to change the references accordingly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: I have wondered about the same "down to the actual day" cite, common whenever @Nvvchar adds sources. He probably uses google books url cite tool for wikipedia. @Nvvchar: I will try a few. Please check each and fix any I missed. Perhaps, fix this for all articles you have nominated for GA. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch For books I have been using this tool [1]. Thanks for making the corrections. I will do corrections in other articles as well. BlueMoonset, you are a perfectionist. I have learned a lot from your reviews. Thanks Nvvchar. 01:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Conclusion
So far as I can see, the article now meets the GA criteria, the second of these to reach this level. Since this is also officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, again my congratulations on your excellent work in getting the article to this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonsetThank you very much for a super review and upgrading the article to GA. Much of the credit for compliance of review observations goes to Ms Sarah Welch. I am requesting Doug Coldwell for the formal approval to GA status. Thanks to all.Nvvchar. 06:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset and Ms Sarah Welch and Nvvchar - this has my approval and should be granted to GA status.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Doug Coldwell, thank you. I am taking care of the remaining steps per your approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Philosophy and religion good articles
- Former good article nominees
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Hinduism articles
- Mid-importance Hinduism articles
- GA-Class India articles
- Low-importance India articles
- GA-Class India articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- GA-Class Ancient philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Ancient philosophy articles
- Ancient philosophy task force articles
- GA-Class Women's History articles
- Mid-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles