Talk:Siddhantasara

Siddhantasara has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 22, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in Siddhantasara, Manilal Dwivedi refutes the idea of genesis as told in the Old Testament? Source: Suhrud, Tridip (2009). "Love, Desire and Moksha: Manibhai Nabhubhai and the Loss of Svadharma". Writing Life: Three Gujarati Thinkers. Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan. ISBN 978-81-250-3043-0. p. 157.

Reviewed: ~~QPQ will be done by my fellow Wikipedian User:Nizil Shah.~~ Willenhall house

Improved to Good Article status by Gazal world (talk). Self-nominated at 11:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It is almost two weeks since this nomination was submitted and no QPQ has been provided. The nominator has more than five DYK credits, therefore QPQ is required. Please take care of this within one week. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nizil Shah for QPQ. --Gazal world (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: Sorry for delay. QPQ submitted now. -Nizil (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination needs a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New enough GA. QPQ provided. Must assume good faith on the offline book source, but all the elements are in the proper places. Earwig turns up no problems. This is good to go. Raymie (t • c) 06:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fact from Siddhantasara appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 August 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Siddhantasara, Manilal Dwivedi refutes the idea of the Genesis creation narrative as told in the Old Testament?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siddhantasara.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

India: Gujarat Low‑importance

	India portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in October 2019.

Philosophy: Literature / Religion / Modern Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of religion
	Modern philosophy

Copy edit request

@Gog the Mild: Hi Gog. After long time. Hope, you are doing well. I just finished my work on this article (as always, its a book by Manilal Dwivedi). Before I publish it, it would be appreciative if you can do copy-editing. Feel free to remove unnecessary details and modify article structure. As per your convenience. There are no any urgency. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gazal world. Done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Great. Thank you very much. --Gazal world (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hey Gog. Is it OK to mark this article as 'B-class' ? --Gazal world (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

Hello, and come what may from this review, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. During the review, I may make copyedits, which I will limit to spelling correction and minor changes to punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. The Nominator(s) should understand that I am a grammar pedant, and I will nitpick in the interest of prose quality. For responding to my comments, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

~~All three paragraphs of the lead start with the title. To mitigate this, I suggest merging the second and third sentences, as both discuss the book's reception.~~

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mesmerism is a pseudoscience.~~

@Vami IV: What can we do here ? Please guide me. --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I recommend changing the "science" in based on the science of mesmerism to "pseudoscience", or delete it altogether.~~ –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Removed the word 'science. --Gazal world (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manilal's theological conclusions are that Āryāvarta is the source of all religions; [...] Could you add a few words to clarify that Āryāvarta refers to a historic region of the Indian subcontinent?

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The last sentence of the second paragraph of "Methodology" should be moved into "Reception and criticism", and germinated into its own paragraph if material on criticism is abundant enough.~~

Done --Gazal world (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vami_IV. Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all the issues. Please see. --Gazal world (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I'll be passing this article now. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 07:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Images are relevant and free/tagged. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes copyvio scanners with a mere 5.7% likelihood. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is stable, with no major edits in months. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 22:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.