Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Upanishads/2

Upanishads

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Upanishads/2&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. Issues raised were all dealt with to the nominator's satisfaction even before being blocked; I see no benefit in leaving this open any longer even though the standard time for community reassessments is seven days. This would have been better settled on the article's talk page without dragging the GAR process into it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The article has many POV issues. Two major POV biases: Nrityam (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Towards Advaita Vedanta: The article fails to give an objective view of the Upanishads. It is more inclined to an Advaita POV. Details on the talk page.
 * 2) Towards the methodology of Indologists - The article makes definitive comments on the chronology of the Upanishads failing to refer even once to the the traditional POV that srutis are not written by any man.

Comments by Joshua Jonathan
This reassessment request is unclear:
 * "Many" is vague
 * It is not. It is qualified by Pt.1 which further points to the POV issues raised on the talk page. In the interest of further clarity, I offer however to summarie the discussions now and present an assessment of further POV issues that might have been introduced by fresh edits by another editor. - Nrityam


 * what is supposed to be an "objective" view?
 * A view not biased by one's predilections and beliefs. Like in this case, the editors seem to have a strong buddhist and pro-Advaita bias and they have unconsciously brought out the biases in the article. See WP:Truth to know what I mean to say. - Nrityam


 * pleae provide concrete examples of "an Advaita POV"
 * In the talk page. Please revisit. I will also, as commented on Pt. 1, summarize it for easy reference. - Nrityam


 * "the methodology of Indologists" - what else do you expect from an encyclopedia which uses WP:RS? If you think that this specific info is missing, just add it; this looks more like WP:POINT.
 * Already addressed on the talk page. - Nrityam (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ms Sarah Welch
Struck #2, as this is now in the Authorship section and sourced to WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Struck #1. The article is fairly balanced now
Nrityam (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Continue this re-review request initiated by sock-now-blocked account?
is there a basis to keep this time consuming reassessment request open now? given the above, and given the user account @Nrityam is now blocked? your guidance on our GA-reassessment guidelines please? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Close, I'd say.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)