Talk:Vyasatirtha/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Will be doing this.

Introduction and limitations
Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject. I do have some knowledge about ancient Indian thought in general due to my knowledge of Buddhism.

Overview
I have assessed the article at C now.
 * 1. Prose:
 * No copyright violations.
 * The article is eloquently and smoothly written, and you obviously have explained these things before. Still, it is often highly technical. Wikilink or explain inline anything that is technical, since GA articles can't be too technical.
 * ✅ I've tried to reduce the technicalities as much as possible.


 * EngvarB is not a clearly defined form of spelling. Use Indian English or another specific template instead, so I know how you are going to use language and spell things, and can review such matters.


 * Below I will do a detailed review.
 * 2. MOS:
 * The lead does not completely represent the main points of the article yet.
 * ✅ I've added a paragraph in the lead which summarizes the articles contents. Let me know if it is not enough.
 * The subject of the article needs only be written bold once.
 * ❌. See section Early life.-- Farang Rak Tham
 * ✅ Corrected.
 * ✅ Corrected.

(Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 3. References layout: No dead links, but there are a number of shortened footnotes that do not correctly link to the sources, because some details are not correct. E.g., is Verghese's book from 1995 or 1997? These errors can be traced using the script at User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.
 * ✅ I have corrected the linking. Verghese's book is from 1995. My mistake.
 * ❌. There are some errors left. One source is also not in the bibliography section. Please install the script.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think this is covered now (with the help of the script)
 * Great.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 4. Reliable sources: Some parts of the article do not seem to be sourced, yet could be challenged. For example, the first paragraph of the Context section.

✅ I've referenced most of the text. There may be some gaps but then I would have referenced them earlier. Let me know if I missed any.
 * ❌ Please see the subsections of Works and Legacy.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have added sources for those subsections.


 * 5. Original research: There could be original research in the parts that are not referenced.

✅ I have referenced most of the text. But if you spot any, do let me know.
 * Should be okay, but I will keep checking.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 6. Broadness: Checking later.
 * 7. Focus: Is focused.
 * 8. Neutral:
 * The lead section is not neutral, and might require quite some rewriting to comply with Wikipedia policy. Please acquaint yourself with WP:NEUTRALITY and WP:PEACOCK, if you haven't yet. It is true that the lead should indicate how the subject is notable, but this should be put explained in encyclopedic and succinct style.
 * Devotional idiom like saint should be avoided per WP:NEUTRALITY, unless used and defined in a specific context, e.g. are considered to be the three great saints of Dvaita as you have written below. But Vyasatirtha ... was a Dvaita saint is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy.

✅ I have definitely removed some glosses and adjectives. But please let me know if the lead does not seem neutral still. Tough to get rid of the bias. :)
 * Drop two of the three quotes, I'd say. It is over the top. You can mention them in the body of the text, though.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 9. Stable: there has been some reverting going on, but this does not brink on edit warring, so this criteria passes.
 * 10-11. Pics:
 * Can you find a date of print for File:Bhagavan_Vishnu.jpg?
 * I tried going through the original text but could not find the date. It was digitized in 1965 by the University of Toronto.
 * Then please delete it. A date is required to determine whether copyright is lapsed, and US copyright normally requires a date before 1923. But if you value it much, we can consult a copyright specialist to find another way.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The details of the image imply that it is public domain and published before 1923. Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * On what page is the image?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Found the year. 1901. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mahabharata-1-Ramanarayanadatta-astri/dp/B007OL1M3M
 * Nice job! I can't access the book, but I'll take it on good faith. Please add to the Commons image page, linked above.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. I've added the date.
 * And I have replaced the source.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added US tags for some of the images.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Detailed review per section
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like ✅,, , , , and. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own when they are no longer relevant.

Lead

 * through Advaitasiddhi Is this a book?
 * Corrected in the lead. ✅


 * Since historical articles mention both historical people as well as modern-day scholars, you should specify briefly who is who, e.g. "Indologist B.N.K Sharma states ..."


 * I will review the lead once more at the end of this assessment:
 * You have not mentioned his name with diacritics: Vyāsatīrtha.
 * Does this need to be mentioned everytime or just once? If once then I've done it. ✅
 * Up to you: modern-day scholars use diacritics, but if you'd use it all the time, you'd have to rename the article as well, and diacritics in an article title causes many problems in Wikipedia templates (though it is allowed).-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Then it would be much better to mention it just once to avoid confusion. So I guess this is covered. ✅


 * The lead shouldn't normally mention anything that is not covered in the body of the text:
 * critiqued an encyclopaedic range of sub-philosophies in Advaita,[note 1] Visistadvaita,[3] Mahayana Buddhism, Mimamsa and Nyaya;
 * ✅ I've consolidated them in the opening paragraph of the section "Works".
 * In this regard, he penned several kirtanas under the nom de plume of Krishnaincluding the classical Carnatic song Krishna Ni Begane Baaro.
 * ✅ Mentioned under Legacy section, "Contributions to Haridasa cult"
 * Good, but better drop the sentence Sharma notes "His admission of Kanaka (Dasa) to the order of Dasa is truly a reform of Lutheran proportions". It is not an encyclopedic tone.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * in-order to quell any rebellion and facilitate their integration into the Empire-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is actually mentioned under the Political influence subsection: " he not only furthered the reach of Vaishnavism but smoothed the integration of newly conquered or rebellious territories into the empire"
 * Okay, then.
 * Don't forget: the lead should not contain any citations that are already mentioned in the body of the text, excepting very basic information ("1539", the year he died) and the quote at the end. So please move the other citations to the body of the text if there not already there. Sorry for the fuzziness, but it's all part of WP:GA?.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget: the lead should not contain any citations that are already mentioned in the body of the text, excepting very basic information ("1539", the year he died) and the quote at the end. So please move the other citations to the body of the text if there not already there. Sorry for the fuzziness, but it's all part of WP:GA?.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Historical Sources

 * Somanatha Kavi As above, briefly state his discipline.


 * Somanatha mentions ... If it is common for Indian articles to use first names of historical figures, please wikilink policy or RfC. If not, correct please.
 * Somantha is his name while 'Kavi' translated to 'Poet' which was his profession. It is a common way of reference in Indian cultures. I'm not sure about policy (I'll look into that). On the other hand, Gautama Buddha, for example, is usually referred to in the article as Gautama. So I guess it would be okay to use first names? What do you think?
 * What do the sources you used call him?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He is referred to as Somanatha in the source.
 * Then we call him accordingly.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Context

 * Are you confident that Jiva is usually translated as 'self'?
 * ✅. Jiva roughly translates to soul. But to remove any ambiguities I have replaced it with atman which surely means "self" or "soul".
 * Okay, but you need to disambiguate it. Atman is a list of several articles, of which you can choose one article.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have disambiguated the link to Atman (Hinduism)

✅ Corrected "information" to "tenets"
 * the information ... Please specify what information refers to.

✅. Using matha.
 * Use either mutt or matha in the article, for consistency and clarity.

Early life

 * famine of 1475-1476 Can this be wikilinked?
 * There is no article specifically for the period. But it is mentioned in Famine in India: "Pre-colonial famines in the Deccan included the Damajipant famine of 1460". So I can link to that? Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can, in case someone expands on this on the future.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

✅

At Chandragiri
✅ I have mentioned that Viranarasimha was next in line after Narasa.
 * You have not yet explained in this section who Vira Narasimha is. Maybe just say so briefly, in anticipation of the next section.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 23:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC) Edited.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

At Hampi
✅ Changed it.
 * Somanatha implies ... Implies? How does he imply this?

✅ ✅
 * Though not part of GA criteria, there are many duplicate wikilinks in the article. You do not need to wikilink something many times.
 * Who is Paes?
 * Where have you explained this? I can't find it.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added a link Domingo Paes and mentioned "Portuguese traveler". Would this suffice? Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

✅ Added the line towards the end of the section.
 * What is the Haridasa cult?

Later Years

 * When you write on something that reflects negative on the subject, such as the estrangement from the royalty, you write about his very carefully and skeptically ("may have been"), but in other parts that reflect positive on the subject, you write very confidently, hardly ever doubting your primary sources. Whether this is a bias also found in the secondary sources used, I do not yet know, but it should be corrected.
 * So the details about his personal life is mainly derived from hagiographies which are corroborated from inscriptions. So most of the accounts are positive. Where it is possible I have mentioned sources which are negative. I use "maybe" or careful terms like that because this information is only from a single source. For example "temporary estrangement" is only mentioned in one of the sources. So it gets a lower prominence. I could dial down on the positive aspects if needed.
 * Don't cut anything out, just try to keep the same tone for both the positive and negative details of Vyasatirtha's life.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 10:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've stated the estrangement incident as a fact.


 * He passed away ... Euphemism, use died instead.

Nyayamruta
✅ I've provided source for almost every sentence.
 * Many parts that are unsourced here could be challenged, and should be sourced or removed.

✅. I've tried to simplify it. Let me know if it is still hard to follow.
 * is the result of Maya distorting the Brahman from the underlying unity. Hard to follow.


 * mithyatva move upwards to first instance of falsity of the world.


 * with some opining ... And what do others say?
 * ✅ I've mentioned some examples.


 * In the second chapter, Vyasatirtha explains how the Madhva doctrine of five-fold difference can be arrived at by synthesizing information from the three pramanas (pratyeksa, anumana, sabda). Cryptic, please expand.
 * ✅ I've expanded upon this. Let me know if it is still difficult to understand.
 * Please explain briefly inline what is meant by Madhva's doctrine of five fold difference.
 * ✅ I've added an inline note.
 * Better, but the sentence is still difficult to follow. Can you simplify it somehow?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've tried to simplify it further. Do you think it is easy to follow now?
 * Well, okay then.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs need to be followed by an empty line per MOS:PARA. I have fixed this in this section, but not in the next sections.
 * scholarly retaliation Retaliation implies action, apart from speech. Do you mean debate?
 * ✅ Corrected

Tatparya Chandrika

 * Madhva bhashya You should explain (and wikilink) somewhere that bhashya is 'commentary'. Also, you have not yet explained which text the Madhva bhashya is.


 * by showing it to be in harmony with the original source compared to the other commentaries More so than the other commentaries?

Tarka Tandava

 * Throughout the article, there are spaces in between the end of the sentence and the citation following: Example sentence. Please remove those.


 * Udayana's Kusumanjali etc. "and other works"?


 * the supremacy of the conclusion (upasamhara) as opposed to the opening statement ... Conclusion and opening of which work?
 * ✅ This is in reference to the Brahma Sutra

Bhedojjivana

 * which can be transliterated translated or transliterated?
 * ✅ Translation makes more sense

Legacy

 * His role as an advisor and guide to the Vijayanagara emperors, especially Krishna Devaraya, has been notable as well. Unsourced.

Spread of Dvaita
✅ ✅ I have mentioned them in previous sections.
 * Tattvavada: maybe stick to either Dvaita or Tattvavada for the sake of clarity.
 * wandering bards or Haridasas You have already mentioned the haridasas several times, but only now do you directly define what they are.

Contributions to the Haridasa cult
✅ I have provided sources for this.
 * This content should be sourced.

Political influence

 * centres of trade and redistribution of wealth. How can a temple be a centre for the redistribution of wealth?
 * The thinking in the book is that temples served as places where people would put their money thereby participating in the economy. A Hindu temple consists of an outer and an inner courtyard. The outer courtyard would have a lot of stalls where traders would sell flowers, incense, accouterments for pooja etc. In times of turmoil, the temples would serve as granaries. Not to mention the temples also received donations. So to regulate the flow of economy, Krishna Devaraya would allow Vyasatirtha to construct these Mathas at strategic locations. To Vyasatirtha this meant furthering the cause of Dvaita. Hence it is a win-win. (so says the book :) )
 * Okay, got it.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory, Valerie Stoker, page=136. [| link]
 * The establishment of Madhva Mathas, apart from serving as a place of worship and community, led to fostering of economic connections. They also served as centres of trade and redistribution of wealth. Where did you source this?
 * Please add the citation.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

✅ I have added it.

Broadness check

 * In Stoker's book (and also in other sources), she introduces Vyasatirtha as monastic head of the Mādhva Brahmin sect, whereas you hardly describe him that way. In fact, you do not even use the word Mādhva, only Dvaita. But it appears both words are use by scholars, and you should at least mention the former in the lead.
 * Well, this was done mainly to avoid confusion as most of the articles on Wiki use "Dvaita". "Madhva" and "Dvaita" can be used interchangeably. Madhva himself called the philosophy Tattvavada so there is no clear consensus on the nomenclature. But I've added the sentence in the lead. ✅


 * Stoker continues: Vyāsatīrtha’s concern with critiquing his opponents’ ideas is deeply entangled with the social and political status of those opponents and the relationships they enjoyed with the Vijayanagara court. This part is was not able to find much in the article here. In fact, I feel you have left out the political dimensions of Vyāsatīrtha's life. Although you mention the activities that he performed by himself and assigned by the court, you do not mention so much the political interests that were served by that, both the court's and his own. This does not mean that he always acted out of self-interest, but there was definitely a political dimension all the time when he was favoured by the court. On a similar note, you do not mention that Vyāsatīrtha worked as an administrator of mathas; and that the fact that he was subject to royal patronage caused the Smārtas to become less influential and powerful. And there was also rivalry, as well as cooperation, with the Śrīvaiṣṇavas. You do not need to mention every detail of these things, but you should expand on the socio-political dimension of Vyāsatīrtha's life.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was mentioned in the biography section that Vyasatirtha succeeded Srpipadaraja as the pontiff of the matha. This would mean that he is the head of the monastic order. Maybe I should have made it more explicit? And I also did mention that the interests of Krishnadeva Raya and Vyasatirtha were aligned such that he furthered his political interests while Vyasatirtha expanded the borders of Dvaita. I have not mentioned the competition for patronage and the specific attacks of Vyasatirtha which I will be doing now. Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

✅ I have addressed the issues here. Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
I will continue the review as soon as I start getting responses from you.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 00:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You can see in the table of contents which sections have not been crossed off the list yet, and contain some comments not yet completely addressed.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham I think most of them are addressed now? :) I'm trying to scan for any technicalities which I can explain now.
 * There are some issues left, most importantly the aspects mentioned above at "Broadness check" and at the lead.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've addressed these points in the article.
 * Nicely done. A few more minor points:
 * As stated above, the lead does not need any citations.
 * ✅ Removed
 * There is one peacock sentence mentioned above which should be removed.
 * The sentence After the accession ... Domingo Paes does not contain any citation, unless the citation is in the note. In that case, the source should also be cited within the sentence.
 * Only the first two chapters of the Brahma Sutra are covered. The rest was completed by Raghunatha Tirtha in the 18th century. should also contain a citation, because authorship is always a contentious matter.
 * His legacy can be analysed in the following facets is redundant and can be removed. Wikipedia policy does not encourage such meta-statements, unless it is in the lead.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * His legacy can be analysed in the following facets is redundant and can be removed. Wikipedia policy does not encourage such meta-statements, unless it is in the lead.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * His legacy can be analysed in the following facets is redundant and can be removed. Wikipedia policy does not encourage such meta-statements, unless it is in the lead.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 12:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've also added an image. Do you think it is relevant? Just to make the article more illustrated. Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, why not.
 * I think the article is good enough for GA now, though I would have liked if you cut a bit more from Sharma's praising quotes. I am passing for GA though. If you do a DYK, send me a signal. And I'd appreciate it, if you also review one of my nominations. See you later! -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you for a thorough review! I will cut out a few praises sure. I would love to review your nominations! I've never reviewed an article before so I'm unsure about the exact procedure (I actually started editing roughly a year back). You seemed to know what you were doing. I will drop in on your current review and comment until I figure out how to process the nominations! Prabhanjan Mutalik (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)