Talk:Yoga Yajnavalkya

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I plan to review this article.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Reopened - as I may have missed some issues as a new reviewer, and want to be sure all the criteria are covered, so have reopen for further reviewing.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Manuscripts

Could the 2 short paragraphs be combined into 1 large? Should be an inline reference at the end of the second paragraph.

• They cover different ideas/points about manuscripts. I, therefore, left it alone. But, if you/BlueMoonset/Nvvchar feel otherwise, go ahead and combine it. - MSW

Structure

Should the first and second paragraphs be combined somehow - as one leads into the other and seems like they should be in the same paragraph.

• Done. - MSW

Knowledge and Varnas

In the second paragraph where it start "Verses 1.27 to 1.40 of the text…." I think could be broken up. Another paragraph that starts with "The text does not recommend either theory…." = could be combined into the last short paragraph to make a large paragraph. Maybe this paragraph could start with something like "According to Bhattacharya's translation…" However you might like to start this paragraph, I think it should somehow be combined with the last paragraph. Then you would have 2 medium sized paragraphs (easier to understand) and I think they both would make sense.

• Done, while keeping new ideas in separate para. - MSW

Concentration

Since all 3 short paragraphs in this section relate to items in "chapter 10" - could they be combined into 1 paragraph. I think it would flow together better = something in the order of the next section of "chapter 11."

• Combined two. Kept one separate because they cover different ideas/points. - MSW

@Ms Sarah Welch:@Nvvchar:@BlueMoonset: - done for now on this one.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from others

I'm going to go through all the sections, this time starting with the lead section; I will follow up with the others as I have time to finish and post them.

• @Doug Coldwell:, @BlueMoonset: I missed this one. Thanks for reviewing this, and to Nvvchar for the note on my talk page. I will start working on this. My comments are marked -MSW. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

• "is a classical treatise in Sanskrit language on Yoga": is a classical treatise on yoga written in the Sanskrit language. (Yoga is generally written in lowercase except here and once near the end of the lead; I have changed the latter.)

• Done. - MSW

• "Its author" sentence: either "Its authorship is" and "to the sage" or "Its author is traditionally said to be the sage"

• Removed. After reflecting on your comments in other GA reviews, I decided to ask if we need this sentence in the lead, where appropriate distill and trim the lead, and move sentences to main if it is already not in the main (with appropriate corrections given your feedback). - MSW

• "Most later yoga texts of Hinduism": how about "Most later Hindu yoga texts"?

• Done. - MSW

• final sentence of first paragraph: please add "the" after "such as", a comma before "share verses" and "with" after "verses"

• Done. - MSW

• paragraph 2, first sentence: add "the" after "describes", replace "states" with either "sets forth" or "gives" as appropriate (or another, better word or phrase)

• Fixed. - MSW

• "however with different goals": this needs a more finished phrase. Change the comma before "however" to a semi-colon, add a comma after "however", and replace "with" with "it sets forth" or "it presents" or "it has"

• Done. - MSW

• please add a comma and "which is" after "kundalini", and a "the" before "Shakti"

• Removed Shakti, since this is not discussed in the main article. - MSW

• the next sentence is clear up to "pranayama", but the "and asserts" clause is confusing, because it seems to be using something general, "therapy", and then starts talking about specific limbs of Patanjali yoga, which seems self-referential: benefits of yoga in various limbs of yoga doesn't seem to make sense.

• Cleaned up. - MSW

• in the final sentence, "prana" should be linked

• Removed, see above for reasons. - MSW

• for the third paragraph, rather than the inconsistent "1.21–1.40, 2.8–2.9 and 6.11–20", I recommend "1.21–40, 2.8–9 and 6.11–20"—no need to repeat the chapter if all verses are from that same chapter in a particular entry. (It's a typical method.) And perhaps "verses" rather than "sections".

• Done. - MSW

Before I continue with the review, I would appreciate it if all the requested name and italic standardizations I have requested on the other recent reviews of nominations by these authors be taken care of here. This is a long article, and the fewer things I need to note the better. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: - name and italics addressed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
• @BlueMoonset: - This looks good to me and approve Ms Sarah Welch's improvements. Since you are the more experienced editor, I'll leave the final approval to you.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• Doug Coldwell, I haven't had a chance to check these, but of course this is only the start of the review; I still need to go through the rest of the article. Once that's done, I'll take a look at the individual improvements and also to see how the revisions work as a whole. Thanks for leaving the final approval to me on these articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Author

• I think it would be useful, in the first paragraph, to give the reader an idea of when the original Yajnavalkya (who is the revered Vedic sage) lived.

• Done. - MSW

• The second paragraph begins very like the first paragraph, saying that the text is attributed to Yajnavalkya. It's unnecessary repetition, and it's rather confusing trying to discern which Yajnavalkya wrote what, or how many there are. I realize that this is a very open question, but more clarity is needed.

• Fixed. We don't know how many there are, and the WP:RS do not provide clarity to explain this without OR. Tried for the best clarity given the sources we have. - MSW

• please briefly explain who Jha is, so we know why his or her opinion matters

• Removed. Jha's views don't add anything new. - MSW

• David White makes a pretty definitive statement: is this generally agreed, or is he an outlier? What is his statement based on?

• Revised. He is an outlier, but respected enough, therefore included. -MSW

• The White quote seems to have two ending double-quotes; which one is correct? And why is it "Yoga Yajnavalkya" everywhere but here, where it's one word? (Well, just about everywhere: it's given as a alternate spelling way down in Structure, which is far too late to introduce the variant. If this is a valid alternate that you think is worth mentioning, you should put it up in the lede.)

• Corrected. - MSW

Chronology

• If you're going to say that the Yoga Yajnavalkya was composed after the Yogasutra, then you have to say when Yogasutra was composed to give the reader an idea of what time period is in play. This gives an earliest date it could have been, just as the books that quote Yoga Yajnavalkya serve as a latest date, since it had to exist before they did.

• Done. - MSW

• I think you should consider a different order for this section, perhaps chronological in terms of when it might have been composed, from longest ago to most recent. That would put Divanji first, then Mohan, then White, then Bhattacharya, though that last is based on the Pune, and thus the theory that Pune is a corruption of earlier versions. (I wonder whether Mohan is truly necessary as separate from Divanji, since both are making the same arguments. And as the Hatha Yoga Pradipika dates from the 15th century, it's not of much use when it comes to supporting a 4th century date.)

• Done. - MSW

• first paragraph, last line: such as its list of expanded ten Yamas instead of five found in Patanjali's text: since "expanded" is used already, would the following still be accurate: "such as its list of ten Yamas instead of the five found in Patanjali's text". Or, if all five from Patanjali have been included, plus five more, perhaps it could be "such as its list of Yamas, which includes the five found in Patanjali's text plus five additional ones".

• Indeed. Revised, but avoided repetitive 'Patanjali's text'. - MSW

• third paragraph, final sentence: having both "teachings of the text" and "teachings in the text" is a bit repetitive; please reword

• Fixed. - MSW

Manuscripts

• I'm confused by the import of the first paragraph. Was this the first modern discovery of an otherwise lost manuscript—had the Yoga Yajnavalkya not been available until the discovery in Bengal? If not, what is included here that isn't covered in the second paragraph? The first sentence of the first paragraph needs either to be rewritten, or to be discarded along with the rest of the paragraph.

• Done. - MSW

Structure

• This section needs a great deal of work. I'd recommend shorter sentences and with varying structures, so this is less like a long list, with what feels like an arbitrary paragraph division solely to break up overlong sentences that don't even work as actual sentences. Three or four paragraphs might be nice.

• Revised into 4 paragraphs. - MSW

There's still a lot more of the article to cover; the Contents section in particular is going to take me a while, since I'm a slow reviewer. I hope this was helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: As always, your comments are helpful and welcome. Keep them coming, when you get time. We are in no hurry. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Finally returning to this: my apologies for the long delay. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Contents

• The second sentence is long and confusing; I also can't tell whether the first nineteen verses are just what's discussed in this sentence, or if it also includes the material of the first sentence as well.

• Fixed. - MSW

• That same sentence capitalizes "Yoga", as does the quote in the previous sentence; by contrast, the Structure section renders "yoga", "yogi" and "yogin" in lowercase. The article needs to be consistent in its capitalization throughout.

• Agreed. I changed capitals to lowercase where the word refers to the pratice of yoga, left it in capitals if it is part of a text title per MOS or if it starts the sentence. - MSW

Knowledge and Varnas

• "state Yoga Yajnavalky": it is not necessary to keep saying that the text states something; since this is in the Contents section, the base assumption is that what is being discussed comes directly from the text. This happens again in the final sentence of the first paragraph, and again throughout the remainder of the article.

• Indeed. - MSW

• verse ranges should use the en dash character, not the hyphen, again throughout the article. Here, verses 1.20-26 should be 1.20–26, and so on.

• Agreed. Seems like @Nvvchar and you already fixed these. - MSW

• "craves for fruits": this needs to be rephrased, perhaps "craves fruit" or something else: I'm not sure whether the person is driven by his or her craving for fruit, or that these cravings are separate but also strong.

• Fixed. - MSW

• the final sentence of the first paragraph should start with "The"; rather than "the latter", give the name again.

• Done by @Nvvchar. - MSW

• in the third paragraph, the first sentence lists practicing celibacy and procreating offspring one after the other, though they appear to be opposites. This dichotomy needs explaining.

• The text states Brahmacharya, which means [1] celibacy if not in a relationship, [2] faithfulness to partner otherwise. The Yoga Yajnavalkya cites do not give these two explanation, however. Combining other sources which explain this would be OR-synthesis. Therefore, I have just left it as Brahmacharya, which sources support. I have added a wikilink that explains. - MSW

• Desikachar is mentioned here; it's the second time in the article, and we still don't know why he's an authority, beyond the fact that he did a translation. Please attend to that when he's first mentioned.

• Done. - MSW

Yamas: virtuous restraints of a yoga student

• the opening quote should give verse number(s)

• Fixed. - MSW

• I'm wondering whether the extensive use of "non-" in this section, especially in its descriptions of the ten Yamas, could be reduced or eliminated. I'm fine with "nonviolence", but "non-harming", "non-falsehood", "non-cheating" and others are problematic. The word "not" could be used when rephrasing, along with other wordings.

• If the term starts with "A*", "An*" or such, then 'non' is accurate as well as supported by RS. In other cases, you are indeed on the mark. Corrected. - MSW

• Since it was established that these ten are the Patanjali five plus five others, I think it would be useful to note which of the five are also in the Yogasutra.

• Checked the Sanskrit manuscript. It is more accurate to say that Y-Yajnavalkya list is longer than Patanjali list, because one of the Yamas, Aparigraha, in Patanjali is absent from Y-Y. A reading of the verses suggests that Aparigraha is implied/derivative of three Yamas included in Y-Y. I added a note, since your request makes sense; but did not include a discussion of 'implied/derivative' for now; will do so, if we can find a WP:RS that we can cite. - MSW

Niyamas: virtuous observances of a yoga student

• Again, since the observances have increased from five to ten, it would be useful to note which of the five are also in the Yogasutra.

• Added a note. - MSW

• The tenth, "Vratam", is the only one listed in italics (and also the only one not wikilinked); shouldn't it be in regular roman text, perhaps as a red link?

• Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

• final paragraph: please add context for who Richard Rosen is

• Updated. - MSW

Asanas: right rules of a posture

• I'm not sure why "right rules of a posture" is included here. Perhaps something like "the postures and their rules" might be better, or even "the yoga postures"

• Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW

• the final sentence of the first paragraph seems to be combining two different ideas: different asanas focusing on different organ groups, and some (two) of the asanas having variations. I think this last idea needs separate discussion, and perhaps these two should be mentioned by name.

• Done. Please note that the manuscript makes claims about 'cleansing' and 'meditative contemplation', but does not explain why and how. The 'how to' procedure for the eight asanas is described in the manuscript, in eighteen verses that are very distilled and rhythmic. I am unable to find an RS with commentary on this chapter, so for now, I am leaving parts of this section to what we can WP:V. - MSW

• the final sentence of the second paragraph needs work—I've tried a couple of times and I still don't think it's quite there yet. Since you're mentioning Padmasana by name, I think you should specify whether it's a cleansing or meditative asana, and perhaps why it is so esteemed.

• Clarified, but I did not add why, because I can't find an RS to back it up. I will keep looking. - MSW

Please note that I've done a certain amount of editing in the Contents section and subsections listed above, so please make sure that my changes do not go against the actual text. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I was away busy in real life from 4-13 May, and so my response has been slow. Your copyedits were fine and improved the article. Awaiting next round of comments, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Finishing the first pass

I've just completed a copyedit of the article—I'm sorry it's taken me so long (now you know why I'm reluctant to open GA reviews)—and I've found a couple of additional issues in sections already covered, which I'll note immediately below before starting with the next unreviewed section, "A theory of human body and inner fire":

• Yamas: the last three in the list of ten are not sourced; please source each of them

• Done. - MSW

• Niyamas: the sixth in the list of ten is not sourced; please add one

• Done. - MSW

• Asanas: the text uses a lowercase and italicized asanas throughout, but the box uses capitalized roman text in the blurb. Please be consistent.

• Done, I think. @Nvvchar: Please check. - MSW

Also, as a reminder, most of the "states X" and "asserts Y" phrases are superfluous and should be remove, especially those describing the Yoga Yajnavalkya, since the text is by Yajnavalkya and as the author it's always his words, and the entire article is about the work's text. As always, you'll want to check my copyedits to be sure I haven't introduced an incorrect meaning.

• I removed most of "states" and "asserts", reworded to avoid making the article into a "how to guide", while keeping it as an article about a historical text. - MSW

A theory of human body and inner fire

• In the first sentence, "human body" is either missing an initial "the", or something else is meant here that needs clarifying.

• Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

• The last two sentences of the second paragraph mention the kundalini, which is uniquely described as "her" rather than "it". It's odd to see the feminine pronoun here—is there a reason that this is an exception?

• In their Hindu traditions and Sanskrit texts, energy / power / shakti / prakriti / kundalini / motive force is revered as and rendered as the feminine essence of all existence. Perhaps that is why. The manuscript of Y-Y renders it the same way. FWIW, the Larson-Bhattacharya source also uses "she, her" rendering on page 480 etc. - MSW

• The third paragraph mentions "fourteen principal channels"—aren't these the Nadis? I don't think you should omit that term here. If they aren't Nadis, then previous explanations have misled me and need to be revisited.

• Agreed. Fixed - MSW

Breath control and meditation for self-purification

• Please revise "without craving for fruits of one's action" so it explains what is meant in everyday encyclopedic prose

• I add the explanation into a note, with sources. - MSW

• Location for yoga: please split the final sentence into two; I'd suggest starting the second with "If frequent daily practice is not possible".

• Done. - MSW

• Mastering the breath: the second paragraph's first sentence needs to be revised: the antecedents (from the previous paragraph), and I'm having trouble parsing the final sentence.

• It was confusing. Revised the para, and the one before. - MSW

• I've seen "asanas" in italics and in roman; please be consistent throughout in usage. Also, whether it should be capitalized or not.

• Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

Meditation

• I've seen "Chakras" both capitalized and lowercase; please be consistent throughout in usage

• Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

• The fourth paragraph has "Dhyana" variously capitalized and lowercase, and the fifth paragraph uses "Murti" in parenthesis, which I think might be better pulled out into the main text (and perhaps be in italics, but perhaps not).

• Done. - MSW

• The final sentence of the section should be rephrased.

• Done. - MSW

The theory of kundalini

• again, "her" is used in this section to refer to kundalini

• In the source, so left it. - MSW

• the last two paragraphs overuse "state" and "asserts". Please make the explanations more straightforward, and try to cite the verse numbers with more finesse.

• Reworded and removed most of it. - MSW

Translations

This section, including its references to Krishnamacharya, confuses me, especially as it relates to the Manuscripts section. I think more clarity is needed: who edited/published/transcribed the manuscripts, who translated them, and when these were done. If there's a difference between BBRA and BBRAS, please make it clear; if it's an acronym, it should be wikilinked if possible and written out in full initially if not. Also, there is a bit too much use of brackets here, and you have both Desikachar and Mohan commenting on Divanji's edition—perhaps the latter's words are sufficient, or the former's can be condensed.

• Clarified. I left the two comment quotes in, because both are significant. Mohan is related to Krishnamacharya, and we can't rely exclusively on his view. Krishnamacharya did something that has been a huge problem in 19th and 20th century Indology, where writers revise or interpolate or insert Sanskrit words into incomplete ancient/medieval manuscripts, likely in good faith, but end up distorting or reconstructing history and human heritage. Desikachar points this out, is notable and important to keep in the article. - MSW

Significance

• Please reword the first paragraph so it's clear that this is all White's analysis; there should be no need to mention his name more than once.

• Indeed. Done. - MSW

• We have Krishnamacharya here again; since you've been talking about the 12th century and before, it needs to be made clear here (or even better, when he is first mentioned), what time period he comes from. (It's a bit harder than usual since he was a centenarian, but it should be possible.)

• Was confusing and undue, so removed. - MSW

• The third paragraph repeats the man/woman structure and its implications—this has been said at least twice before. Perhaps this can be shortened and/or contrasted with Divanji's point about the women-only verses. Please also revise the "of the text" and "in this text" sentence; again, too much "text".

• Reworded. - MSW

• The final paragraph seems to be making the point that the Yoga Yajnavalkya is a basis for the later yoga texts, which it could perhaps do a slightly shorter length. I do think, however, that "they develop different ideas" is too vague—ideas about what? Or perhaps you could mention a basic idea or two that was not included.

• Reworded. We could add and clarify. But I didn't add, since we lack WP:RS to back it up. - MSW

Yoga Yajnavalkya versus Patanjali's Yogasutra

• This entire section is Rosen's analysis—has anyone else done this comparison, and do they agree with Rosen or are there significant points of difference? I've pulled out the later interjections with his name, but you will probably want to do some further rewording.

• Trimmed. - MSW

• I can't help but notice that "self" has become "Self" in this section (but not completely). The same is true for other words.

• Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

Notes

• 1. Is there a reason "brahmachcharya" is not capitalized and not described? Also, I think you should mention the fifth yama from the Yogasutra and what it meant—the one that was not included in the Yoga Yajnavalkya—because it was unique in not being included.

• Fixed and added the fifth. I like the way you think @BlueMoonset. Indeed, that clarification improves this article. - MSW

References

• 13. I don't understand why this refers to "Krishnamacharya and Desikachar (1995)", when all other references (such as 15) credit this as "Desikachar (1995)", which matches the bibliography section.

• Fixed. - MSW

Bibliography

• When I clicked on the link for Larson and Potter, it took me to the 2008 edition, not the 1970 edition. Further, the 2008 edition listed Ram Shankar Bhattacharya as a co-author; doubtless, he did a great deal of work on the text along with Larson before his death in 1997. So I have to query the 1970 edition by Larson and Potter: first, it seems highly unlikely that these two would have the same ISBN, and second, the 2008 is called a "First Edition", which would be incorrect if there was a 1970 edition previously. (Note: Potter appears to be the general editor of the series, based on the back cover shown; I don't know whether this means he also needs to be added to the 2008, or he can be omitted.) This is to be a 27-Volume Encyclopedia, and Larson/Battacharya is volume 12. (They also, in 1987, worked together on volume 4.) The preface makes no mention of a prior publication of this volume; indeed, it notes the large gap between the 1987 volume and the 2008 one, which Larson calls a "sequel". I also removed "Publishe" from after "Motilal Banarsidass", since the book gives that as the short form of their publishing name.

• Agreed. I have added Bhattacharya to the 2008 source, but still need to trace the 1970 edition to figure out the right thing to do here. - MSW

• Ms Sarah Welch, looking at Larson's web page, it refers to the 2008 as "his most recent publication"; I doubt he'd do that without qualification if it were a reissue or revised edition. Let me know what you find. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• You are right again. I hesitated because Bhattacharya died 20 years ago, so the version has to be one before 1996. Our goal being stick to WP:RS, I re-verified the summary in Larson-Bhattacharya 2008, and implemented the change you suggested. - MSW

• Under the circumstance, adding Battacharya here is going to require the addition of the name in all the 2008 Larson references. Sorry about that, but I think it's necessary. I also suspect, based on the above, that the 1970 Larson & Potter references are actually to the 2008 edition, and will also need fixing. Spot-check a couple of them to see whether the material is on the right pages in the 2008; much of the book is available on the Google books link.

• Done. - MSW

First-pass summation

Ms Sarah Welch, this should cover the first pass of the review: it's a very long article, and a lot of good work was done in creating it. The sections I just completed have some of the prose roughness of the other articles in the overuse of "states" or "asserts" or frequent references to the text, but that was smoothed out in them and I'm sure it will be done here. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Truth is that this article pre-existed long before I edited it for the first time. So credit goes to early contributors, and I blame me for adding the roughness in attempts to keep the past/integrate Nvvchar's contributions/etc. I hope my revisions were in the right direction. Yours copyedits look fine to me. I look forward to additional questions/suggestions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference clean-up

Ms Sarah Welch, because the Desikachar 1995 refs had the authors reversed from what they were in the bibliography, I decided to put both Desikachar volumes in harv format in both bibliography and inline cites. I also updated the two Mohan 2013 cites that weren't in harv format. However, there was a Desikachar with the same title as the 1995, but with a 2010 date; I also used the 1995 harv on it, but you'll want to check to make sure this is a valid change. (There might be a new 2010 edition with only the one author, in which case you'll want to add that edition to the bibliography [and make sure you specify that it's a second or revised or whatever edition if so]; I'd still make it in harv format, however.)

There is one use of the Mohan 2013, on the caption of the doubled picture next to the The theory of kundalini section, that does not have a page number. Please add the page number to it. Thanks.

I need to do a comprehensive recheck of your revisions, but I'm hoping we're just about done with the article. I believe it's close to attaining GA status, and may even be there. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Your harv idea improves the article, and I updated all Desikachar and Mohan cites to a consistent harv format. The 2010 kindle issue is same as 1995, and I added the page numbers for Chapter 12-related ref of Mohan 2013. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Any additional comments? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I'm sorry it's been so long: I was away from Wikipedia for nearly two weeks (unplanned; I couldn't get access from where I was), and then had to catch up on other things. The article looks quite good after your edits a few weeks ago; there are only two very minor things that I can see:

• Breath control section: this seems to rest on a metaphor involving fruit—if I understand what's being said, it's that you should not do things because you crave the result/satisfaction/harvest/fruit from your actions, but because they are the right things to do. It seems to be a matter of motivation. By only using "fruit", this reads more literally than I think it needs to be in an encyclopedic work: I think people will think that it's a craving for actual fruit. Can you please try to make this more general in at least one place here?
• Mastering the breath: The newly added list "Pranava (Om), Gayatri with Vyahritis and Siras" is a bit confusing to parse. If this is three things—1. Pranava; 2. Gayatri with Vyahritis"; 3. Siras—then I think for clarity a comma is needed after Vyahritis, even though the serial comma is not typically employed in this article. If "with Vyahritis and Siras" is a unit, then I think an "and" needs to be added before Gayatri.

That's it. Once these two are addressed, I'll be happy to recommend to Doug Coldwell that he pass the article. Thank you for your incredible patience! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I replaced "fruits" with "rewards" to clarify, except in one instance with a mention of both, because WP:RS also translate phala as fruit. On Vyahritis and Siras, reworded it, then added a refn note to clarify what these terms refer to, with sources. Thank you for your efforts as always, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, thank you. In the second instance, should "prefix" be "prefixes" and "suffix" be "suffixes"? (These are the possible prefixes and suffixes, right?) Also, the prefix list has an "and" before the final prefix, while the suffix list does not use "and"; is there a reason these are constructed differently? Typical lists would use the "and", but if there are reasons not to I'd be interested in knowing them. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Fixed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, it seems to me that refs 81 and 82 are the same book and page, with Bhikshu the original author and Jha the translator. (Ref 84 is the same book, but a different page.) If true, you could combine these into the same ref, mentioning both and using 82's "cite book" format, I think that would be great. Or, perhaps even better, you could make it a Harvard-style ref, adding this book to the bibliography and using the "sfn" template so that it covers refs 81, 82, and 84. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Converted to harv. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Final comments

Ms Sarah Welch has done some truly excellent work editing the article to bring it to meet the GA criteria. It has been a pleasure to work with her; I'm only sorry this has taken as long as it has. Doug Coldwell, in my opinion the requests made in this review have been fully addressed, and the article is ready be listed as a Good Article. (I've noted just one final thing to do above regarding references, but it shouldn't hold up the GA listing.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The excellent work is truly from you. A review is a lot of hard work. With admiration and thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: If you need any final approval from me, consider this it-> as it all looks excellent to me and should be listed as a GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Listed as GA. Congratulations, Ms Sarah Welch and Nvvchar!