Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manilal Dwivedi/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2020 [1].

---

Manilal Dwivedi

Nominator(s): Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Manilal Dwivedi was a writer, poet, and philosopher from British India famous for his works on Indian philosophy, particularly on Advaita Vedanta philosophy. He was, along with Swami Vivekananda, invited to the first Parliament of the World's Religions to represent Hinduism. In the short span of his life (40 years), he left a long lasting impression on Gujarati literature. I am nominating this for featured article. It had a GA review by Yashthepunisher, and several people were active in its Peer Review. All constructive criticism and advice is welcome, no matter how minor, as I'm only interested in improving the representation of such an important Indian writer. I'll endeavour to answer comments as quickly as possible. Bringing this article up to this stage would not be possible without help and collaboration. Thanks to all the editors who have helped along the way, including Gog the Mild, Tim riley, Peacemaker67, Nishidani, and Nizil Shah. This is my first attempt for FA. --Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• All images look good. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with. It might take me two or three days to complete the review.

• Pandit Yuga, an era of Gujarati literature during which scholarly writing evolved: is "scholarly" the right word here? Our (linked) article seems to say that the change during this era was more general than that. Perhaps "Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address ..." and perhaps take something from the list in our linked article: "social welfare, criticism, plays, new-age thinking, worship of the country, the values of life, etc.". I gather "Pandit Yuga" is literally "Age of Scholars" but it doesn't sound like that's the right way to define the literature of that era.

Rephrased: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new-age thinking.

That's an improvement, but now I look at it "new-age thinking" is probably not the right term - in English the phrase refers to "New Age", which I'm sure is not what is meant. You're citing this to Desai 2011; how does he define it Pandit Yuga? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Desai's book don't say anything about the defination of Pandita Yuga. We will have to use another source for the definition. Perhaps, this source would be best for the definition. Please check.

The distinct characteristics of this age was : all the writers received western education at newly founded university, and all of them were proficient in Sanskrit language.

I would suggest this:Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address social welfare, Western literary genres, and new ideas and concepts brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively: Pandit Yuga, an era in which Gujarati literature expanded beyond religious forms to address the literary genres, ideals, ideas and concepts from the West brought by the colonial rule. -Nizil (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't see the linked source, but the second sentence suggested seems fine to me, so long as it's supported by the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The definition proposed by Nizil is not supported by the source. So I am working on a new definition supported by the source.

Somewhat similar definition supported by ref: Pandit Yuga – an era in which Gujarati writers explored the traditional literature, culture and religion to redefine contemporary Indian identity when it was challenged by the Western culture brought by the colonial rule – ...-Nizil (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

References

• The lead says both He was one of several ... who campaigned for reforms ... and he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform; these appear to contradict each other.

In colonial India, the process of reform was two fold. One coming from the West, and the other indigenous. Also there were reformers who felt the need for reform but did not want to look upto the West. Manilal was one of them.

That's a helpful distinction but it's not apparent in the lead; can you make it clearer that the two uses of "reform" are different in this way? And in the "Social reform and educational writings" section can we get some examples of what he believed were needed reforms? That also might help with the distinction -- i.e. if we can see what he campaigned for, which is relevant information for this article anyway, we can contrast that with Western reform ideas he disagreed with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead already includes As he held Eastern civilisation in high esteem, he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform. In section, Gazal world may add needful info.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What's missing from the lead is the background information that social reformers were divided by the question of Western influence. Details in the body would help flesh out the ways in which the groups differ, but I don't think that's needed in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This quotes from Raval's book clarifies that there were two groups of reformist. See "The conflicting trends — one of new wave of reform movement under the Western influence, wanting to change the structure and the value-system of the Indian society, and the other, and urge to safeguard and justify the cultural tradition of India — shaped the mental make-up of Manilal Dwivedi. (Raval, p.197)"

I have prepared two paraphrased version of the above quotes: (1) In 19th-century India, there were two main groups of reformers. One, influenced by the Western education and ideas, challenged the validity of many Indian traditions and agitated for either abolishing or making fundamental changes to them. The other group resisted the Westernisation of Indian culture, wishing to protect traditional Indian heritage. (2) Among 19th-century Indian reform movements, two trends existed. One aimed to alter the structure and value-system of India itself along Western lines. Concerned that such a model might undermine Indian culture, a counter movement arose which opposed such social reengineering on a foreign model, arguing that reform must update, rather than eradicate, Indian traditions. Minilal's outlook was aligned with the latter position.

Regarding your question "...in the "Social reform and educational writings" section can we get some examples of what he believed were needed reforms?", I have prepared this paragraph: Manilal was in the second of these camps and a defender of all aspects of Indian traditional thinking. He believed that the Westernising reformers' concentration on the external manifestations of institutions and traditions was fundamentally misguided. His concept was that individuals should concentrate on reforming their own attitudes and views. Such internal reforms, he believed, would express themselves in a better cooperation with others as a part of society, thus improving traditions and institutions holistically. His emphasis was more on the duties individuals owed to others rather than on the rights owed them by others. (Thaker, 56)

What you think ? If it is OK for article, where should I add it ? Can we add this at the start of "Social reform and educational writings" section?

• Manilal appeared to be contradictory in his professions and performance. In his private life, he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships. Suggest "Manilal's private life was inconsistent with his professions: he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships."

Done

• to a Sathodara Nagar family. What does "Sathodara" mean?

Nagar Brahmin is a Hindu caste and 'Sathodara' is a sub-caste of it. Should we include a footnote for it?-Nizil (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

done, added a footnote.-Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

They are known as Sathodara because their ancestor belongs to a village named 'Sathod' (near Dabhoi). Added this fact into footnote.

• It took me a while to figure out what "standard" means; I think a footnote explaining that it's equivalent to "grade" or "year" would be helpful to non-Indian readers.

done, added a footnote: An educational stage equivalent to grade or year.-Nizil (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• He returned to Nadiad and in July 1880, becoming an assistant teacher at the government high school: something wrong here: either "returned to Nadiad in July 1880, becoming" or "returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880 became" depending on what the timing was.

My bad. You are right. He returned to Nadiad, and in July 1880, became an assistant teacher. Corrected.

• Given that there appears to be a book-length biography of Manilal, the biography section is fairly short -- is there no more detail that would be worth adding?

Ok. I am going to add some important biographical details. Will add some two paragraphs.

I'll take a look when you add the additional material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mike. I have added one paragraph in "Biography" section. Unfortunately, I could not find more details suitable for this section. As he lives only for 40 years, very less details about his biography is know. Most details about his biography come from his autobiography Atmavrittanta which he left in manuscript from; it was published 80 years later after his death. Still I am trying to find more detail, and if I will succeed, I will let you know.

Looks good; I copyedited it slightly. If the bio has no more details then that's fine, so I'm striking this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Manilal's first literary attempt was the play Kanta (1882): I'd consider his 1876 poem, Shiksha Shatak, a literary effort, so I would think this needs to be rephrased.

Ok. Changed to In 1882, Manilal published his play Kanta

• He believed that the root of all activities of human life can be traced to the principle of Advaita Vedanta: I don't understand this.

He believed that 'all human activities were informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta'. What would you suggest. Please guide.

I can't because I still don't understand what it's telling me. Can you give me an example of what this belief might mean in practice? E.g. if someone believes this, what sort of thing would they say, or argue for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am simplifying the sentence: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Simple explanation: Advaita Vedanta teaches that self-liberation (moksha) can be achieved by understanding oneself and the ultimate reality. It teaches the person and the ultimate reality are one thing, not two things. As Rambachan says: this state of liberating self-knowledge includes and leads to the understanding that "the self is the self of all, the knower of self sees the self in all beings and all beings in the self." For example, a person believing in Advaita would not harm other person because it recognises him as a part of himself. It is oversimplification but I hope that it is good enough to understand.-Nizil (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful; thanks. So to say that "all human activities are informed by the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" means that he thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Or that all human activities are in fact conducted in a way consonant with the principle, whether the person involved is aware of it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. The first one. He thinks that all activities should be conducted with this awareness the self is part of all and vice versa? Note that the source does not say anything about this. But, as I am closely connected with the subject, I know this background details. If this sentence is problematic, then we will remove it.

Explaining "the philosophy/principle of Advaita Vedanta" as "awareness the self is part of all and vice versa" is presumably sourceable, right? So the only thing we need to source is the "should"; is there anything in the source that indicates this? If not I don't see how to include it, but in that case, if you're confident this is the right reading, how are you confident? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I talked with my scholar-friend Babu Suthar, and came to this conclusion that we should not use "should" here as Manilal doesn't prescribe this as an idea. He says that the roots of all the activities are in non-dualism (Advaita). This is a descriptive statement which describes his position. We can not support such claims by giving empirical proof. It is, in fact, a theoretical position. I would prefer Nizil's rephrasing: Manilal believed that Advaita Vedanta philosophy can guide all human activities.

To say that Manilal believed Advaita Vedanta philosophy should be used in a certain way is not supporting the claim; it's just stating Manilal's belief. However, I think the rephrasing is OK too. I'd like to copyedit it slightly, and explain it inline; how about "Manilal believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. Rephrased: He believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities.

• He was recognised both in India and more widely as a staunch protagonist of ancient Indian religion: "protagonist" isn't the right word; do you mean "proponent"? And should "Indian religion" be more specific -- Hinduism, perhaps? As it stands it could mean he was a proponent of Jainism too. And "more widely" is a fairly strong claim, given that he was writing in Gujarati; what does the source actually say here?

Rephrased He was recognised both in India and in abroad as a staunch proponent of ancient Hindu tradition. Further, he also wrote several books and articles into English, which were well received in abroad. According to sources, he was known as a 'learned Indian philosopher' in abroad.

• Did he attend the 8th or 9th Oriental Congress, for which he wrote articles?

No. He didn't attend it. He only sent his articles to be read at the 8th & 9th Congress.

• He was awarded a certificate of merit for the second article: who by?

Obviously by the Congress. No more information is available.

• Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati: I was surprised by this, as I'd assumed everything above not specifically described as being in English was in Gujarati. I assume you're not including Gulabsinh since it was a translation, but I had assumed Raja Yoga was in Gujarati except for the parts you describe as being in English. Given that Manilal is famous as a Gujarati literary figure it would probably be good to be clearer about what's in Gujarati and what's in English as we go through, and I'd change "two books" to something like "two books in addition to Gulabsinh". Reading further, what about Panchashati? And looking at Works of Manilal Dwivedi I see several other Gujarati titles.

Sorry for confusion. You are right. No need to mention: Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati. All his books were written in Gujarati. For the English books, I have described them as being in English. The entire book Raja Yoga was written in English. Panchashati is the Gujarati version of Manilal's English book The Imitation of Shankara. Can I replace Manilal wrote two books in Gujarati, with In order to response the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. (Thaker, p. 29) ? What you think ?

It would be "In order to respond to the so-called reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books"; but what do you mean by "so-called"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The "so-called" reform movements are "other" reform movements inspired by the West. Manilal's reforms were rooted in Eastern philosophy. I suggest: In order to respond to the reformist movement of his age inspired by the West, Manilal planned to write two books.-Nizil (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the distinction between the two branches of reform, Western-inspired and indigenous, is a key point. Are there names for these two approaches, or were there names then? Would it make sense to add a paragraph at the start of the "Works" section explaining the history of the reform movement and the distinctions drawn between the brances, and placing Manilal's works within that context? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Rephrased. In order to respond to the Westernised reformist movement of his age, Manilal planned to write two books. To clear the distinction between the two branches, I have prepared some two paragraphs in my sandbox. Waiting for your reply.

I'll comment there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think, we should strike this point, as it is resolved. The remained issues has already been covered in the above discussion (Your 2nd point).

• By design, the first contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy and is titled Pranavinimaya. Do we need "by design"? Suggest "The first, Pranavinimaya, contained practical expressions of spiritualism according to Hindu philosophy."

Done as you suggested.

• started a Prarthana Samaj movement in Nadiad: I think "movement" is probably the wrong word here; the movement was started by Dadoba Pandurang and Atmaram Pandurang, according to our article on it, so Manilal and his friends would have started a local group, or a society, or a meeting, or something like that.

done, changed to started a local group of Prarthana Samaj in Nadiad. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, given that the Prarthana Samaj movement is relevant to the controversies section, a parenthetical explanation of the movement would be helpful to the reader -- just "(a movement for social and religious reform)" would be enough.

done, added footnote: a movement for social and religious reform started in Bombay in 1867. -Nizil (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Priyamvada and Sudarshan are mentioned twice; I'd suggest finding a way to combine the mentions, and it would also be good to explain why he switched from one to the other -- the linked articles say it was because he realized an article on women's issues would never be successful, so if you can source it that would be worth adding.

Fixing twice mention... Done See, what you think?

Explained the reason why the magazine was switched to other.

Now it says he found that it was difficult and premature to run an exclusive women's magazine, which is not very specific. Are the sources clear on this? E.g. was it because he realized the magazine would never gain much circulation since men would not buy it? Or perhaps because it was premature, in that women's issues were not of interest to many reformers, so there was not much of an audience for it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I think, the current explanation is enough. Also there are separate articles for both magazines. Manilal realised that the magazine would not flourish so long as it addressed only women readers. So he expanded the scope of the magazine. At that time, Gujarat was very backward, and most women were uneducated. So he didn't received desired response from women community. But, I am happy to do whatever you would suggest.

That's a much clearer explanation than what is in the article. Assuming you have a source for what you say, I'd suggest "In 1885, Manilal founded and edited a magazine called Priyamvada to discuss the problems faced by Indian womanhood. At the time, most Gujarati women were uneducated, and the magazine did not draw the response he had hoped for from the women's community, so in 1890 he renamed it Sudarshan, and made it wider in scope." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Done

• As Jhaveri noted in History of Gujarati Literature, through his writing in Priyamvada and Sudarshan, Manilal emerged as the acknowledged master of Gujarati prose: Again quite a strong claim; is Jhaveri enough of an authority to make this claim as fact? "Noted" implies that what follows is clearly factual, so it would probably be better to weaken this to "according to Jhaveri", or something similar.

Changed to According to Jhaveri. Jhaveri is considered an authority in Gujarati literature. His book History of Gujarati Literature was one of the earliest literary history of Gujarati literature. The book was published by Sahitya Akademi, India's national academy of letters.

OK; I copyedited it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not necessarily a problem for this article, but I see some inconsistencies between this article and Works of Manilal Dwivedi. For example, I don't see Charitrya listed in the works article, and Malati Madhava is listed as Malatimadhavam.

Charitrya is listed in the works article; in 'Translation and Adaptation' section (from English). Regarding Malatimadhavam, both spelling are OK. For consistency, I have changed it to Malatimadhava in both article. P.S. Sorry. The correct spelling is 'Charitra'. Corrected now.

• It seems there are many more works by Manilal that you don't mention; of course you can't list them all, but what's the basis for selecting which ones you do mention in this article?

I have included only those works which were widely discussed and studied. I can write one or two paragraph about his minor works, if you suggest.

No need; I just wanted to understand the basis for what was mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Their public debates are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature. Does this refer to actual debates at public meetings? Or to the back-and-forth articles they wrote? I think it must be the latter but "public debates" implies the former.

The 'public debates' refer to the articles they wrote to each other and published in their own magazines. (Neelkanth's magazine was Jnanasudha; Manilal's magazine was Sudarashan).

How about making it "Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Done As you suggested.

Struck. Does Jnanasudha deserve a redlink? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mike. Don't worry. I am going to create a blue-link for Jnanasudha.

• Is Advocate of India worth a redlink?

Done

• (the one who steadily fixed in the consciousness of the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality): I don't follow the syntax here. Should be just "(one who steadily fixed in his consciousness the..."?

This sentences is the explanation for the Sanskrit term Brahmanishtha. Brahmanishtha means 'the one who continuously keep his mind attached with Brahman'. Brahman is the Advaita vedanta terminology for 'ultimate reality' (God). What would be the right explanation. Please guide me.

I think ""(one who always keeps his mind fixed on the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate reality)" would do it. Looking elsewhere on the web for definitions of this makes it clear it's not a term with a simple definition. Is the term itself worth a red link, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Done As you suggested. If you talk about Brahmanishtha, I don't think it deserves red link.

OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure Arnold's comments at the end are a good way to conclude the article. This is the opinion of a Western orientalist, talking about one of Manilal's earlier works. It might be more suitable to mention this (perhaps in a footnote) when you talk about Raja Yoga earlier in the article; you do already mention Arnold's admiration for the book at that point.

Done Moved that quote in a footnote.

• Any reason there are no citations to Purani's biography?

Purani's biography is very old and outdated, So I haven't used. Thaker's biography is the most reliable source.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: My honest 'thanks' to you for your time and your detailed comments. I will address all the issues very soon. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I am helping in this FA. -Nizil (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Replies without signature are mine. --Gazal world (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I've struck or replied to everything above, except for the note about adding more biographical material; I'll read through when you add that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Section break

Coming back to this after a hurricane-enforced break. Here's what is not resolved from above -- I know some of this is discussed and perhaps resolved at the sandbox linked above, but I'm just trying to gather things here to simplify re-reading.

• A good translation and explanation of Pandit Yuga is still under discussion.
• The background of reform during Manilal's time needs expansion, and an explanation of what kind of reforms he supported and how he fit into the movements of the day.
• Clarification of Manilal's belief in Advaita Vedanta philosophy.

Everything else above is dealt with, whether struck or not. I'll go and look at the sandbox next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, have read through again. I suggested above that more context at the start of the Works section would help set the stage, and looking through now I still think that's the case. The first paragraph defines the Pandit Yuga, and finishes with a sentence about Advaita Vedanta, but that's the only context we get. For a reader like myself who has none of this background this is not enough to position Manilal historically, or amongst the other reformers of the day. Here's what I think the reader needs to understand before we get to the discussion of his works (with the caveat that my understanding is drawn from the notes in your sandbox, so I may well have misinterpreted some things):

• Pandit Yuga was (per Patel, cited in your sandbox) an era in which the writers had absorbed a knowledge of Western culture and intellectual history, but were also familiar with the Sanskrit literature of their own culture. That appears to be a big part of what launched their scholarship.
• It might also be worth pointing out that apparently the writers of Pandity Yuga gained their knowledge of Sanskrit, initially at least, via Western scholarship. I would guess there's a tie there with the wish for independence and reclamation of one's own culture that parallels and informs some of the strands of the reform movement.
• The reader needs to understand the division within the reformers: some believed in "outward reforms": changing social practices directly, such as caste restrictions, and others believed that these changes should come from a reform of religious ideas.
• This latter type of reform still needs more explanation, I think: I'm still not seeing in what sense he was a social reformer, if he argued only for changes in people's relationship with their religion, and not for a change in outward behaviour in any way. If the answer is that "social" here includes religious reform, then we need to clarify that -- "social reform" is not going to be interpreted that way by most readers. The characterization of Manilal's desired reforms is clearer (in the sandbox) than it was, but I still think we need specific examples both of what characterized the group Manilal was allied with and his own specific beliefs. This will presumably include some form of the sentence about Advaita Vedanta that we've been working on.

Once the reader understands those things, I think we can go on with the material in the works section.

I don't think these are minor changes; it's going to take a little while to get it right. If you agree that something like what I'm suggesting is a good idea, then given that it's been a while since this was nominated, I think you might consider withdrawing at this point. I'd be willing to work with you on the wording of the material -- there's not a lot of it needed but the sandbox work attests to how tricky it's going to be get it right. Once we have that sorted out and you renominate I would expect to be able to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi. Happy to see you back. I have no problem with withdrawing this nomination. But I already have prepared some contents to answer these question: (1) the definition or Pandit Yuga (2) Distinction between two reform group & (3) Manilal's position among them. Please see your 1st and 2nd point. Answers are there. --Gazal world (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The content above is a good start, but my comments were after reading them. For example, the two points about Sanskrit aren't in Nizil's suggested wording. I'm not insisting on these points, just suggesting that we include them based on my (limited) understanding of the sources you quote. Similarly, the expanded comments about Manilal's reformist beliefs are helpful but are general; there are no specific examples of what he was arguing for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok Mike. I understand your point. I will work on it, and definitely I will ask for your help at sandbox. How can I withdraw this nomination. Please guide me. And when I can re-nominate this after withdrawing? --Gazal world (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You can withdraw by asking the coordinators; pinging Ian Rose and Ealdgyth -- one of them will take care of it. I'm out of town part of this weekend but should have some time to help out. You can renominate after two weeks, and it'll probably be close to that by the time we're done with the sandbox. I look forward to working with you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll handle the withdrawl in a few... I just got out of bed and need some caffeine before doing anything that might break the wiki... --Ealdgyth (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.