Talk:Jabala Upanishad/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 14:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on reviewing this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

review -

@Doug Coldwell: My notes are marked with MSW. @Nvvchar may have his own replies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoBox Upanishad

The picture in the Infobox fits the article nicely. However the description in Commons doesn’t seem appropriate - as this is not a girl and he is not holding a backet. "A learned ascetic" is probably more appropriate for Commons description. If you feels that is correct, can you change Commons description.

Fixed. - MSW

Lede

The lede says "The Sanskrit text is one of the 20 Sannyasa Upanishads," and perhaps further should be said in the text at Structure in the first-line or in a sentence directly after.

The third paragraph of the second section states this now, with anthology where Jabala Upanishad is being described as a part of various groups of Upanishads. - MSW

History

The main theme of this Upanishad is renunciation. = under the ref page 431 it says, "Explains renunciation and the nature of a paramahamsa, a type of rishi who has an unmanifested (avyakta) nature, and is considered the highest ascetic." I don't see where it says it the "main theme" is renunciation, however with a little explanation I'm sure this can be cleared up. It probably implies this. Or maybe a little rewording on this is in order, like - This Upanishad has to do with renunciation and paramahamsa, the highest ascetic.

Fixed in this section as well as the lead. - MSW

Can the single sentence of, "In the anthology of 108 Upanishads of the Muktika canon, narrated by Rama to Hanuman, it is listed at number 13." go as the first sentence in the next paragraph.

Indeed. All anthologies should be together. Fixed. - MSW

Chronology and anthology

In this section I notice that Bibliothica Indica is red-linked. I stumbled across on the web info on Bibliotheca Indica Series, maybe enough for a future article? The book cover for the Collection of Oriental Works is most attractive.

Indeed. - MSW

That’s all for now. Waiting for replies from nominator--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Coldwell: I also added italics per MOS, as I went line by line, and removed duplinks. @Nvvchar: If I missed anything, please fix. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from others

I offered to help Doug Coldwell on this review. Here is what I've found, section by section. I'm posting the lead and History sections now, and will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them.

@BlueMoonset: Welcome. Your review is appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

(see WP:LEAD for general principles):

a quick note that the lead is supposed to summarize the article's body. I think there's a bit much copied directly from History (third paragraph), and not enough from the Contents and Influence sections. Do note that two paragraphs, maybe three, is the largest the lead should be given the prose size of the article.

Indeed. Tentatively revised to reflect the entire article, but will revisit once again when all review comments are in. - MSW

"is an ancient era text": I don't think "era" is necessary

Fixed. - MSW

"composed before the 3rd century CE": this conflicts with the infobox, which says "before 300 CE". The third century CE runs 201–300 CE, so if before 300 CE is right, then it's before the 4th century CE. Go with what the Olivelle source says: if it's 300 CE, then use that; if it's 3rd century, use that.

Checked. Olivelle states 300 CE on pages 7-8. Fixed. - MSW

there's something not quite right with asserting that achieving spiritual enlightenment as the "transcendence of attachment to every desire, including the desire for renunciation itself"; either the "as" before the quote should be "is", or something else needs to change. Also, quotes are the exception to the general rule that citations are not necessary in the lead, so you absolutely must cite this sentence. The other exception is potentially controversial statements, which must be cited wherever they occur.

Revised. - MSW

It also is among the earliest texts which states that the four stages of life, called Ashrama, are not sequential and anyone can renounce. I think this means that one can take the step of renunciation at any stage of life, not just at the end, but "can renounce" does not convey this. Please revise.

Done. - MSW

In the final sentence, I think that "Sannyasi" needs to be defined, since the term hasn't been and may not be obvious: perhaps something like "Sannyasi (renunciate)" would be sufficiently clear and accurate? (If not sufficiently accurate, then choose something that does work.)

Agreed. Sannyasi (renunciate) works. Used in the last sentence. - MSW

History section

as in the Lead, I don't think "era" is necessary in "is an ancient era text"

Fixed. - MSW

also as in the Lead, the "3rd century" probably needs changing

Fixed. - MSW

1st paragraph, final sentence: "both with the same message" does not have a clear antecedent: are you saying that both the six-verse version and the fourteen-verse version have the same message? Is this chapter by chapter same, or basically the same text spread out over a very different number of verses? I couldn't figure this out. This later becomes more confusing when the Structure section refers to the text having "six long verses", and then the Contents section clearly separates by six chapters and their fourteen verses. If there is a preferred version for whatever reason, then I'd go with that one, but give a few details about the other in one of the two sections.

Yep. Checked the sources and the manuscripts. Let us stick with the sources on this, use the term "chapter". Moved the manuscript structure from the History section into the Structure section, because it better fits there. - MSW

2nd paragraph: Sage "Yagnavalkya" links to an article that spells the name "Yajnavalkya", and indeed this Jabala article uses the two spellings interchangeably. Please pick one spelling for the article and stick with it throughout; I'd recommend the one that the article about him uses.

Using Yajnavalkya after checking Olivelle and other WP:RS. This is also the standard per HK and IAST norms. - MSW

here you're quoting a single scholar who says the text "seems to justify suicide in certain circumstances", while the Lead just says "justifies suicide in certain circumstances". If the body can only allow "seems to", you shouldn't be more certain in the lead.

Fixed. - MSW

3rd paragraph: the first sentence is confusingly written. I would suggest listing the first two ashramas in one sentence, and then say next that the third ashrama consisted of both (either?) Vanaprastha and Sannyasa. The final sentence can note that the Jabala was the first to list four stages, with those last two as separate stages.

Indeed. Reworded. - MSW

That's it for now. More to come. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of new comments on this section, now that it has been revised:

in the first paragraph, I suggest rewording "composed before 300 CE, likely around 3rd century BCE" as "composed before 300 CE and likely around the 3rd century BCE".

Fixed. - MSW

I would suggest moving the final sentence of the entire section, with the variant names of the Upanishad, to the end of the first paragraph.

Makes sense. Done. - MSW

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: please consider putting commas around "as the expounder of the precepts of this Upanishad".

Fixed. - MSW

3rd sentence: I was thinking that the "Principal Upanishads" wikilink should probably be rendered "principal Upanishads", and rather than rely on the redirect, specify the actual page you mean in the wikilink (currently Mukhya Upanishads, so it would be principal Upanishads). It's a translated term, so you may disagree on whether "principal" should be capitalized (I won't insist on lowercase).

Both "principal" and "Principal" are found in WP:RS. I like the smaller case. @Nvvchar, please change it if you feel capital is better. - MSW

4th sentence: I'm interpreting this to mean that "Avimuktam" translates as/means "how that city became holy". If this is not what it means, then the sentence needs to be recast.

Avimuktam means "not unharnessed, not left alone", and refers here to "that which is never left by Shiva" per page 757 of the Paul Deussen source. I recast the sentence. - MSW

5th sentence: I would add "the worldly life at any time" to the end of the sentence for clarity, with perhaps "their" rather than "the". In general, I'm not in favor of "renounce" alone; it reads oddly to me, even if it may technically be correct.

Makes sense. Done. - MSW

6th sentence: please wikilink Sannyasi. It's the first mention of it in the body of the text—the person who has renounced, which is not the same as the ashrama Sannyasa—and should be linked.

Fixed. - MSW

3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence: I think the sentence can be made simpler by combining the final two clauses: "stages of life is first mentioned in the Jabala Upanishad." I did wonder about this being the first mention, since while a likely estimate is the third century BCE, the range starts prior to 300 CE and goes back 600 years or more. How can scholars be sure that Jabala Upanishad was the first to separate the third stage into two separate ones?

Fixed. You make a good point on "how can scholars be sure". The Chandra source was added by @Nvvchar, and I defer your concern to him. I will, in parallel, check Olivelle and others. If appropriate, will add a sentence or two, for NPOV. - MSW

Checked two books by Patrick Olivelle. The observation of @BlueMoonset is on the mark, and I have revised this to present both Chandra's and Olivelle's views, without taking sides, for WP:NPOV. - MSW

Chronology and anthology

2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: I think "the" is needed before "Colebrooke", and "which is" after the comma and before "popular"; as there may be a meaning I'm not aware of, I'd rather not change them myself. The same "popular" construction is used in the next sentence as well.
- Done - NVV
"In later age compilation collection": this needs an edit
- Edited -NVV
"and spelled as Gabala Upanishad": I think it might be clearer to write and "Jabala" is spelled "Gabala". If you think it would be clearer, you could end it and "Jabala" is spelled "Gabala": Gabala Upanishad.
- Corrected - NVV
"Oupanekhat": instead of in quotes, since this the title of a collection, it should be in italics.
- Done - NVV
that second sentence is a bit convoluted, and the "who prefaced it" information needs to be adjacent to the Sultan rather than after the "consisted" info. I'd suggest starting with the Sultan, who put together what he considered the best book, with the title of Oupanekhat and containing a translation of 50 Upanishads; handle the Djabal spelling the same way you handled Gabala above. If this is the first translation, and all other versions have been Sanskrit, might want to mention Sanskrit again (or might not).
- Yes, corrected - NVV
final sentence: rather than starting "This", which doesn't have a clear antecedent, please give the Oupanekhat title again.
- Changed - NVV
  - Unfortunately, this was not an improvement. I have made a subsequent adjustment. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1801-2: per MOS, should be 1801–02 (en dash)
- Done -NVV
  - Not quite: you adjusted the second part of the date, but you did not change the hyphen to an en dash. I have done so. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
to the likes of Schopenhauer and into the studies of philosophy: this feels a bit informal and vague
- Corrected -NVV

Changed it to Arthur Schopenhauer, and wikilinked. - MSW

I took a look at the section after the above, and found a few more revisions, some new, some as a follow-on to the revisions made:

Please give first and last names of the various scholars (Nakamura, Sprockhoff, Feuerstein, et al.)

Fixed. Added who is who and wiki-linked. - MSW

In the third paragraph, the second sentence makes a number of claims about the origin of Oupanekhat that are not covered in the given source (Keith): it doesn't give that title, it says that the collection was made at an unknown date (and presumably by an unknown person) and translated into Persian for Dara Shukoh, with nothing about the "best book". This part of the information definitely needs a cited source, and I'd advise a further revision of "in 1656 put together what he considered the best book, with the title of Oupanekhat" along with it.

Indeed. Revised. Correct WP:RS added. - MSW

I've revised the final sentence and the end of the one before; please make sure I didn't make any factual errors while doing so. I probably should have given Schopenhauer's full name, and he should definitely be wikilinked. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - MSW

Structure

It's unusual to have "king Janaka" (that is, lowercase "king" followed by someone's name, since in this form "king" is a title, not a description of the rank). Shouldn't this be "King Janaka"?
- Right, changed - NVV
At the end of the first paragraph, I think it should be "(renunciates)", since the referent is "famous sages". Indeed, the second clause of that sentence feels unfinished: perhaps something like "who were model Sannayasi (renunciates)". You probably have a better way to reword it.
- Done - NVV
In the second paragraph, I don't think "of its manuscript" is necessary; on the other hand, I would (if it's true) add "separate or" before "number": "does not separate or number the verses", referring back to "structured into 14 verses".
- Changed - NVV
Final paragraph, final sentence: after "Paramahamsa", I think you will want to either delete the comma or the "as" that follows it; similarly, please consider replacing the comma after "asceticism" with an "and".
- Done - NVV

I won't be able to start work on the Contents section until tomorrow, and the Influences section until after I complete that. I'd like to suggest a copyedit of Influences before then; the prose seems a bit rough in places, and the use of italics is inconsistent. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the last sections of observations by BlueMoonset . @Ms Sarah Welch: Please see if my changes are adequate.Nvvchar. 09:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The lead image is properly licensed as free—Lady Lawley died in 1944, over 70 years ago—though the caption needs a minor change: "one" needs to become "ones" if "Sannyasi" can be plural (or is made plural), or if it's singular, then please change "have" to "has". The question of the proper plural of Sannyasi should be settled here and throughout the article.

Done. - MSW

The image of Varanasi is properly licensed as free. For the caption, I think "shown" can be eliminated by putting Varanasi first and linking it: The Hindu holy city of Varanasi is mentioned in the Jabala Upanishad. If you can use a stronger word or phrase than "mentioned"—and based on the text here, you should be able to—do so. (Something like "frequently referred to", if warranted; you'll know what's best.)

Fixed. - MSW

This section is not quite in order, but I thought I'd do this now since I realized I hadn't done it at the beginning. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most sentences seem to have a reminder where the text comes from: "recommends the text", "asserts the Upanishad", "states chapter 1 of the text". These are unnecessary, as the source (chapter 1) was stated in the paragraph opening; the only thing you might want to note is that this is a single-verse chapter, since otherwise people may lose track of where we are in the 14 verses. Be aware of this as the Contents section continues, and strip out similar unnecessary clauses.

Stripped. - MSW

please define "videhamukti". If it's the same thing as described in the article "videha mukti", then wikilink as well

Done. - MSW

second paragraph: start with "In the two verses of chapter 2, sage Atri, the son of Brahma, asks Yajnavalkya,"

Since some versions don't use verse numbers, I have taken this out. - MSW

the second and fourth sentences are structured similarly: "The X, states Y". This should be used only sparingly, and does not work well in the fourth.

I took this out, unless I felt it was important that the speaker be identified. But, @Nvvchar, please revise it further if you feel I didn't go far enough. - MSW

Brahman is already linked in Structure; linking here, and within a quote, is clearly overlink and should be removed.

Fixed. - MSW

in the final sentence of the third paragraph, if Deussen's translation is not typical, then you can mention him at the beginning of the sentence: "In Deussen's translation, Yajnavalkya replies that it is in him,"; otherwise, drop "translates Deussen" altogether; the citation is sufficient. Actually, if you use him here, Deussen should be given his full name and bona fides, which is currently done later, in the "Life is sacred" section.

Fixed. - MSW

I'm complete at sea when reading the fourth paragraph. It needs a rewrite for clarity.

Indeed, it was confusing. Rephrased. - MSW

The fifth paragraph also has issues, which includes a grammatically incomplete middle sentence. I'd suggest starting with "In the third chapter, which consists of the short verse 4", and then perhaps give the students of Brahman and their question followed by Yajnavalkya and his actual answer, "Satarudriya", followed by an explanation of what that is. If you need to quote a few words here and there to avoid overly close paraphrasing, do so.

Revised. - MSW

How to renounce?

please revise the opening: "In chapter 4, which contains verses 5 through 8, King Janaka"

Fixed. - MSW

"sage" is not necessary; we know who Yajnavalkya is by now

Agreed. - MSW

Assuming this is an actual quote from the source, the parenthesis should instead be brackets ("[renunciation]"), and the exclamation mark strikes me as an inappropriate interpolation, even if Olivelle uses it; I'd omit it and put a period outside the quotes. (Ramanathan, source 21, uses a period.) However, I think it's better if you just state it in your own words. This is in part because:
Since you're using "Sannyasa" elsewhere, I don't think you should use the "Samnyasa" variant in the quote; "Sannyasa" is already wikilinked in History so shouldn't be linked again here.

Fixed. - MSW

Second paragraph: add a "that" after "explains".

Reworded. - MSW

Next sentence would better start, "Or, he continues, one may do a renunciation"

I used "Or, continues Yajnavalkya,..." because he could be confusing (could mean Yajnavalkya, or could mean the sannyasi). - MSW

That sentence should not end with "or not"; those words should be moved to immediately after "whether"

Yes. Done. - MSW

An important point alluded to in the sources I looked at is that not only can you do your renunciation after you have completed a stage, but even if you haven't. Ramanathan translates, "a person may renounce worldly life that very day on which distaste for it dawns on him", presumably before completing the student, married/householder, or forest stages, and become a pilgrim immediately. This paragraph needs to mention this, as I think it's crucial: first Yajnavalkya explains for the four stages, then says that renouncing the worldly life can happen not only in stage order but after any of the stages, and then prior to completing a stage.

Indeed. Added. - MSW

Move Patrick Olivelle and his qualifications to the beginning of that sentence; no need for "states".

Fixed. - MSW

Final paragraph, first sentence: I think it would be clearer if "although" was added before "some people", and "Prajapati ritual" is explained and/or wikilinked.

Done as a note, with source. - MSW

next two sentences: both have "states the text", and it should be deleted in both places.

Fixed. - MSW

in the list of the three elements, the parentheses should be replaced with brackets, since that is not part of the original (see both Ramanathan and Deussen/Bedekar/Palsule)

See Olivelle. He translates it as goodness, energy, darkness. - MSW

Ms Sarah Welch, unless Olivelle actually renders this section as "Sattva (goodness), Rajas (energy) and Tamas (darkness)" in his book—an exact character-by-character quote—then this would appear to be a Deussen quote with Olivelle translations, and in that case, those interpolated translations must be in brackets rather than parentheses. Unfortunately, Olivelle doesn't appear to be accessible online, so I can't check for myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Embed quote from Olivelle for easier WP:V. - MSW

"states chapter 4" should be deleted

Fixed. - MSW

the final sentence is far from encyclopedic in tone: this needs to be rewritten

Reworded. - MSW

The other subsections will be addressed later this week. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for these detailed comments. Very helpful. Excellent, and I am enjoying it. I also cleaned out, a bit, in light of your comments so far, the sections yet to be reviewed. @Nvvchar: please check and revert/correct anything I made worse/erred on. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life is sacred, euthanasia a choice

I have to question the use of "euthanasia" in the section header and text. The most common meaning of the word is "killing [those] that are hopelessly sick or injured for reasons of mercy" according to my Webster's, and this section talks about methods of self-caused death (suicide), and not necessarily merciful ones (starvation, death in combat, immolation, drowning, etc.). I cannot access some of the translations, so the word may be used there, but that isn't what I see in the ones I can access. Perhaps "Life is sacred, ending it a choice" would keep the apparent tension between these two without using either "euthanasia" or "suicide" in the header

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

"queries Yajnavalkya on whether": make this more direct: "asks Yajnavalkya whether"

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

in the second sentence, I recommend starting with Deussen: "According to the translation by Paul Deussen, a professor and German Indologist, Yajnavalkya answers that"

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

the end of this sentence needs a cite: all sentences that contain a quote in them (unless the quote continues more than one sentence, in which case you wait until the sentence in which the quote ends) must be cited.

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

please reverse the clauses of the third sentence; otherwise the currently initial "He" refers back to Yajnavalkya rather than to the renouncer.

Fixed by @Nvvchar. Further clarified. - MSW

the first paragraph ends "states Yajnavalkya", and the second and third paragraphs start "Yajnavalkya states". Revising to eliminate at least two of them is a must.

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

the first sentence of the second paragraph isn't clear enough what the exact options are. "Alternatively" isn't the best word, and some of the individual items read as if they could be combined—that the hero's death is abstaining from food, for example. It shouldn't need to wait to the end of the sentence and the note to puzzle things out. I think you need to put a phrase like "great journey" in quotes here, and there's no reason why "in a just war" can't be interpolated into the sentence (in parenthesis if necessary).

Fixed by @Nvvchar. Clarified. - MSW

It seems clear that for the above passage, Deussen and Olivelle are at odds in their translation, since Deussen refers to "colourless garments", while the article is specific that they are ochre. And I think you should feel free to reorder the various conditions (shaven head, etc.) to make the wording flow best; as it is now, words like "with" and "without" aren't always used when they would make it clear the exact conditions. Please take another look and revise.

Checked Olivelle, Deussen and Sanskrit manuscripts - it is discolored/colorless garments. Revised. Clarified. - MSW

I'm not sure what is meant by "euthanasia right" and obviously think the first of those words should be replaced regardless; if all scholars do not agree, then "some scholars" would be better

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

in the final sentence, I think I would replace "than" with "from" and "as" with "to be".

Done. - MSW

In the third paragraph's first sentence, is Yajnavalkya prescribing what the renouncer pilgrim should be doing, or is this more of a reminder? That will affect the initial wording. In the second sentence, Deussen does not mention the "mortal danger" bit, and it doesn't fit well in the sentence; if you're going to keep it (Olivelle?), then please recast. I'd end this sentence with "both verbally and mentally" to avoid the awkwardness of "their" in this context.

Olivelle mentions "If a man is in mortal danger,..." and "mentally or orally" part on page 145. Revised. - MSW

Paramahamsa: the ideal renouncer

"Atman" is given in italics here, the only place with such usage. Please use here whatever is standard in the rest of the article (with the accented or unaccented first letter). The italics should be eliminated in both the first and last paragraphs, and in the latter also for "Brahman" and probably for "Paramahamsa", since the former word is also not italicized in the first paragraph.

Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

the first paragraph uses "don't" twice; contractions should never be used in article prose as they are considered too informal for encyclopedic style. (If you are quoting material that uses contractions, they must be retained, but that's the sole exception.)

Fixed. - MSW

in the block quote, I thought you were using the Deussen at first, since the wording was identical until I hit the begging, at which point I realized it was the Olivelle, unless you have combined elements of both. If you have combined them, please redo the quote so it follows one source or the other, and only quote that source: it's not a quote if you amalgamate the two versions. Abridging is fine; remove what you don't think is necessary, but indicate what is gone: the ellipsis (for omissions) can be used either with or without brackets; parentheses should not be used unless they are original to the quote (for example, the "joy versus sorrow etc." parenthesis in Deussen).

Fixed. - MSW

Influence

it was easier to do the edits for my suggestions directly to the section; please check to be sure any rewording is accurate.

Checked. Looks good. - MSW

at the end of the first sentence, should it be pointed out that this is a "right away" thing: a person could do so that very day.

Indeed. Added. - MSW

Notes

in the first note, please add "the" before "Samkhya"

Done. - MSW

in the third note, a couple of things. First, "to what the text might be referring to" seems redundant; if you want to keep it, then it needs rewording for clarity and grammar. Second, I would replace "The fourth and recent translation" with "A recent translation".

Indeed. Done. - MSW

in the fourth note, please replace "states" with "according to"; alternatively, you could just eliminate the mention of Olivelle entirely and let the footnote serve as that referent.

Eliminated the mention, because it does read better. - MSW

in the fifth note, please add "the" before "Hindu"

Done. - MSW

I wanted to close this round of suggested edits by noting that I do not have access to any of the Olivelle texts—they are not online—so I cannot check against them and have to guess what is there. I can see most pages of Deussen. This means I cannot check the actual words Olivelle uses. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:: Thanks, once again. @Nvvchar: Please check/revert/add. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Ms Sarah Welch:. I think all comments have been adequately addressed by you. @BlueMoonset: may kindly see for any further review observations.Nvvchar. 01:24, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New round

I've gone through the latest version of the article, and made a number of edits directly to the article. Please check to ensure that I haven't inadvertently misrepresented any facts in my edits. In addition, I've made a few notes of new items that I think should be addressed. These are:

History: the final paragraph mentions both Chandra and Olivelle without identifying them. Chandra hasn't been identified elsewhere; in the case of Olivelle, please move the identifying text from the How to renounce section to here.

@Nvvchar: I know nothing about Chandra. FWIW, I could only find a Soti Chandra, who is credited to be the author of this cited source, added what I found. Please check and update. - MSW

The author of this reference is Dr. Soti Shivendra Chandra who is Principal of the S.S. Post-graduate College, Shahjahanpur, Rohilkhand University. He has authored several books which have been mostly published by Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. This reference [1] gives some biographic details.

How to renounce: I don't understand what the final sentence means: what does the liberating mantra of Om have to do with the three Vedas and the Brahman?

I reworded it after checking Olivelle and Deussen translations. I don't want to add more, because the sources don't. In the context of the text, Om is A-U-M, each syllable is symbolism for one Veda in the Hindu tradition. - MSW

Ms Sarah Welch, I can understand you not wanting to add more, but I still read the sentence and am confused. (I read the source and am also confused by it.) Following the Vedas link doesn't help, because it talks about four Vedas, not three. (You have to dig in quite deeply before you find that the fourth Veda was added later than the other three, which leads to the conclusion that the Jabala Upanishad was written prior to the fourth's addition.) Your explanation here helps a great deal. May I request that you add a Note to the article at this point with a similar explanation: the context, that there were three Vedas then rather than four, perhaps name them so A-U-M is clear, and so on? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Indeed. The "note" idea is excellent. Atharvaveda text is also ancient, ~1000 BCE, but it gained acceptance as a Veda much later. I have added all this in the note, with sources. Thanks again, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa: the ideal renouncer: in the middle of the Quote template, there's a comma followed by an en dash, which is non-standard punctuation (it's after "anything or not"). Can you please fix this?

Fixed. - MSW

general comment: "Sannyasi" appears in roman, italic, and lowercase italic (this last variant in Paramahamsa). Please standardize on one. (The last two GA articles we worked on used lowercase italics, if that's any help.) Note that "Sannyasa Upanishads" would be capitalized even if "sannyasi" was not.

Fixed Sannyasi -> sannyasi. I left Sannyasa alone, because it is one of the four stages of life, and the other three stages of life are not in lowercase or italics. If you feel everything should be in lowercase italics, please change it. - MSW

As you have it now is fine. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this round. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, you're most welcome. I've just made a new round of prose edits—not many, but please be sure I haven't made any changes that are inaccurate. There was one place that I couldn't figure out what to do, in the second-to-last paragraph under Holy city of Varanasi. The final sentence needs some sort of adjustment: the description of the quote from Ramanathan uses "referring to", but that is not the right phrase because it's Ramanathan's words in parentheses, not the Upanishad, unless I'm very confused. It might require something as simple as substituting "meaning that" for "referring to", or something more complex. Please let me know when you're done; once you've adjusted this (and, if necessary, revised any of my changes), the article should be ready to be promoted. Thanks again for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Indeed, that was a confusing sentence. I checked Dalal's page 51, the Ramanathan source, and the manuscript. Then, separated the Dalal source since it does not mention Ramanathan, and moved Dalal source up. I also reworded that sentence sourced to Ramanathan, because you are right, that is Ramanathan's interpretation and commentary (feel free to tune it further). Your prose edits were fine, and an improvement. Thanks again. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, excellent work in these last changes. I think we're all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

To my eyes, the article now meets the GA criteria. Since this is officially Doug Coldwell's review, it is up to him to decide whether to grant it GA status. Doug, please let us know here if there's anything else you think needs doing, or if you approve. In the latter case, I'll take care of the necessary final steps to get the article listed. Thank you all for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Yes, it has my approval. It definitely meets GA status. Thanks for your assistance.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell, Ms Sarah Welch, Nvvchar, the template has been fixed on the talk page, the bot has added the GA icon to the article, and I added the GA to the list under Philosophy and religion on the appropriate GA page. I don't know why the bot didn't also post to Nvvchar's talk page, but the GA is official. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:, @Doug Coldwell:, @Nvvchar: Always a pleasure to read your comments, collaborate and learn from you three. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset:, @Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for GA. It has a very fruitful learning process.Nvvchar. 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]