Talk:Gārgī Vāchaknavī

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 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Added full debate and new sources

I have added full debate and some new sources. If there is any mistake, let me know --Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 11:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Haccom: You have added the entire verbatim text of the dialogue under quotes. It is fine. But I am not sure how the reviewer will take it. Let us see. Of the two external links, the first one does not open. The second one may not be acceptable. Any way thanks for the edits.--Nvvchar. 06:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: I fixed the external links. Gargi is mainly known for her debate and it should be plausible to include the full debate. --Haccom  ✉ Talk to me 09:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gargi Vachaknavi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 22:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Will review today or tomorrow. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: This will probably pass, and the problems that I'm seeing appear to be caused by other editors, rather than you. Let's get started!

• Why isn't she in the "Hindu philosophy" navbox?
  • I have now added a template on Indian Philosophy which includes names of philosophers where the name of Gargi Vachaknavi is added

• Do we have any idea about her birth and death dates?
  • I have done extensive library search but could not find any direct details of her birth year but she was a contemporary of Yagnavalkys who lived in the 7th century BC. Brihadrayaka Upanishad is also dated to around 700 BC and her intellectual debate finds mention there. I have given this date in the default box and also at the start.

• I would add a little bit more in the lead from the early and later life sections.
  • Done

• Repetition of "sage" in the first sentence of early life.
  • Cirrected

• "Right from a young age she was very keen on learning as she had an intellectual bent of mind." This is very clumsily worded--perhaps "from a young age, Vachaknavi was very intellectual."
  • Cchnaged as suggested

• "often surpassed men" would probably be better than "even surpassed men"
  • Done

• "She awakened her kudalini" how do we know this? Also, seems to be unsourced.
  • Ref fixed

• "rich contributions" not "rich contributions"
  • Done

• That paragraph in the "debate" section is way too long.
  • Yes, I have pruned the entire section conforming to the text when article a was approved for DYK on 25 March 2015 here [[1]]

• This could be due to other editors, but I would check that paragraph for tone, connection, and weird sentence structures. Because you have an en-5 userbox on your user page, you should be fine to do this yourself. :)
  • Yes, it has been changed as mentioned above.

• Parce through your quotes. In my opinion, both are too long. The first is much too repetitive to be fully quoted, while the second is overly long and should probably be summarized, although part of it can be quoted as well.
  • This has been done now

• "In the above debate…" at the end of that sentence, put "on the nature of Brahman (world of the imperishable)."
  • Done

• "Yagnavalkya felt enough was enough…" That phrase and others throughout the sentence are much too informal, and there is a spelling error ("loose" instead of "lose")
  • Modified

• "Her philosophical views also find mention in the Chandogya Upanishad." Expand on what can be found on her in this work.
  • There is only a mention of Chandogya Upanishad here but nothing on her contributions

• "Gargi composed several hymns…" source?
  • Sources added

• "had the honour of" is a bit POV and informal
  • Corrected

Placing on hold for now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 13:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• @BenLinus1214: Thanks for a very erudite review. I have addressed all issues in the text as per replies above. Pl let me know if more changes are needed. Nvvchar. 08:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nice work. Pass. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 12:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

• @BenLinus1214: It is really a very fast approval. As I don't get automatic bot message on any of my GAs at the start and approval stages, I would appreciate if you kindly leave a message of approval of this GA on my talk page. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 13:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: