This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
A fact from Haravijaya appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Ratnākara's Haravijaya is the longest extant Sanskrit mahākāvya?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
ALT1: ... that the Haravijaya has been praised in many Sanskrit anthologies and works on rhetorics? Source: Peter Pasedach 2011 p.6–7.
Reviewed:
Comment: A mahākāvya not studied very often due to its length and technical difficulty. There are a surprising number of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of Sanskrit and Dharmic literature generally, I'm happy to bring an article from a neglected area to DYK. regards,
Created by TryKid (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Overall: A QPQ is not needed. Both theses are acceptable sources per the explanation given at Talk:Haravijaya. The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The nominator can choose the hook. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I am fine with either hook, though ALT0 does indeed sound more impressive, and might work better as an "interesting" hook. regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]14:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: I could do that for a section or two, but the PhD thesis just doesn't have as much detail—it doesn't talk about the two previous published editions of the text, and doesn't talk as much about the content of this work. I would have to rely on the Masters thesis anyway (only it has the correct verse number for the Suktimutalvali verse; Smith himself misprints it, and the PhD thesis doesn't talk about it). The Masters thesis is cited by Pasedach in the PhD thesis and one published article. WP:THESIS states Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I'm not sure if these citations count as significant even in the small field of Sanskrit literary studies, but I'm inclined to WP:IAR and let it be, specially given the uncontroversial nature of the information. regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A QPQ is not needed. Both theses are acceptable sources per the explanation given at Talk:Haravijaya. The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The nominator can choose the hook. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Comment: MA theses are not considered as reliable sources. Cite Pasedach's PhD dissertation instead. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
