Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments

  • R. C. Majumdar and Anant Sadashiv Altekar were pioneer historians of India but belonging to the nationalist school. Their methods, observations, and conclusions have been significantly critiqued by the Marxist, Subaltern, and Postmodern schools of historiography across the last few decades. I find this article to be overtly dependent on their publications, and need to check recent historians.
  • R.C. Majumdar was not the author of any work cited in this article. He was just the general editor of two books cited in the reference section, namely The Classical Age (part of the series History and Culture of the Indian People) and The Vakataka-Gupta Age (part of the series New History of the Indian People). The actual authors of the sections used in writing this article were A.S. Altekar and D.C. Sircar, as indicated in the references. Regarding Altekar, I don't see how the "school" he belonged to is relevant, since I used his publications only for simple factual statements and not for interpretations. The one exception would be the sentence regarding Shaivite and Vaishnavite divisions in the final paragraph, but even in that paragraph I provided an alternate viewpoint by D.C. Sircar, and did not pass off Altekar's viewpoint as objective fact. If you believe that any statements in this article are tenuous, controversial, or need backing from more recent sources, then please be more specific so I can improve the article accordingly. Thank you. Bangaru Yachama Nayudu ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Bakker, Shastri, Mirashi and U. Singh are fine.
  • May-be, use these sources too?
  • Bakker, Hans (2019-08-02). "A Theatre of Broken Dreams: Vidiśā in the days of Gupta Hegemony". Holy Ground: Where Art and Text Meet. Gonda Indological Studies. Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004412071_015. ISBN  978-90-04-41207-1.
  • Bakker, Hans (2004). The Vākāṭaka Heritage: Indian Culture at the Crossroads. Egbert Forsten. ISBN  978-90-6980-148-3.
  • Bakker, Hans, ed. (2008). Mansar - The Discovery of Pravaresvara and Pravarapura Temple and Residence of the Vakataka King Pravarasena II. Library of the University of Groningen. doi: 10.11588/xarep.00001400. ISBN  978-90-367-3688-6.
  • Setubandha is a Prakrit Kāvya of 15 cantos. [1] [2] Why use 'work'?
  • Upinder Singh calls it a "work" in the cited source. In English, the word "work" can be used generally to mean "something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort" (Merriam-Webster). But I edited "work" to "poem" anyway to avoid any confusion. Thank you. Bangaru Yachama Nayudu ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The chronology is not established beyond doubt. [3] Our article does not form such impressions on a reader.
  • He has been often confused with the Kashmriri (likely Huna) counterpart. [4] Probably deserves a mention?
  • Fix the citations.

Specific issues

  • Will appreciate an expansion of lead. MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • In the chronology section, you write The only record that provides a firm chronological basis for Vakataka dynastic history...
  • Does the absence of calendar era permeate across all branches of the Vakatakas? Reading the first line, it seemed that the issue was exclusive to PII!
  • I will appreciate more clarity.
  • Due to the absence of any earlier records that can be precisely dated, different historians have proposed differing dates for Pravarasena's reign is redundant to The precise dates of Pravarasena's reign are not known, because all of Pravarasena's surviving records are simply dated in terms of regnal years rather than a calendar era.
  • I have edited the latter line. Please remove the former.
  • Can you detail (in short; a line or two to each) about how the four scholars (Shastri/Bakker/Kulke/Spink) reached the different dates?
  • I will appreciate a section on sources. See Karkota_Dynasty#Sources, written by me.
  • What was the language used in the charters? What about the content of Tripuri inscription?
  • Lines like The largest number of Vakataka inscriptions belong to Pravarasena's reign. shall be moved there.
  • Many lines are (apparently) not sourced. WP:INLINECITE.
  • I will appreciate that subsections are created in the "Overview" section.
  • One on the territorial extents. (Maybe add a map?) One on wars. And, so on.
  • If the older tradition of the Vakatas were aligned with Shaivism when and why did they shift course? I will appreciate some details.
  • I am unsure about what Pravarasena made a grant for the spiritual welfare is supposed to mean.

References

  1. ^ Rao, Ajay K. (29 October 2014). "Double Reading". Re-Figuring the Ramayana As Theology : A History of Reception in Premodern India. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN  9780415687515.
  2. ^ Bubenik, Vit (15 October 1998). "Historical, Social, and Linguistic Background". Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). John Benjamins. pp. 23–24. ISBN  9789027236708.
  3. ^ Spink, Walter M. (2011). "A Revised Vakataka Chronology". Ajanta: History and Development - The End of the Golden Age. Handbook of Oriental Studies II. Brill. p. 166. doi: 10.1163/9789004412071_015. ISBN  978-90-04-14832-1.
  4. ^ Pollock, Sheldon (19 May 2003). "Sanskrit Literary Culture from the Inside Out". In Pollock, Sheldon (ed.). Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. University of California Press. p. 70. doi: 10.1525/j.ctt1ppqxk.9. ISBN  978-0-520-92673-8.

Status query

Bangaru Yachama Nayudu, TrangaBellam, what is the status of this review? As far as I can see, Bangaru Yachama Nayudu has not edited the article since the "Specific issues" section of the review was added on September 4; indeed, they have not edited on Wikipedia at all since mid-August. Under the circumstances, it may be time to close this review as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

BlueMoonset, I offer no opposition to a close. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
TrangaBellam, as reviewer, please go ahead and close it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Failing). Or I can do it if you'd prefer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Having heard nothing further from TrangaBellam, despite significant activity elsewhere on Wikipedia, I am closing the GA nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pravarasena_II/GA1&oldid=1062206280"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: TrangaBellam ( talk · contribs) 10:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments

  • R. C. Majumdar and Anant Sadashiv Altekar were pioneer historians of India but belonging to the nationalist school. Their methods, observations, and conclusions have been significantly critiqued by the Marxist, Subaltern, and Postmodern schools of historiography across the last few decades. I find this article to be overtly dependent on their publications, and need to check recent historians.
  • R.C. Majumdar was not the author of any work cited in this article. He was just the general editor of two books cited in the reference section, namely The Classical Age (part of the series History and Culture of the Indian People) and The Vakataka-Gupta Age (part of the series New History of the Indian People). The actual authors of the sections used in writing this article were A.S. Altekar and D.C. Sircar, as indicated in the references. Regarding Altekar, I don't see how the "school" he belonged to is relevant, since I used his publications only for simple factual statements and not for interpretations. The one exception would be the sentence regarding Shaivite and Vaishnavite divisions in the final paragraph, but even in that paragraph I provided an alternate viewpoint by D.C. Sircar, and did not pass off Altekar's viewpoint as objective fact. If you believe that any statements in this article are tenuous, controversial, or need backing from more recent sources, then please be more specific so I can improve the article accordingly. Thank you. Bangaru Yachama Nayudu ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Bakker, Shastri, Mirashi and U. Singh are fine.
  • May-be, use these sources too?
  • Bakker, Hans (2019-08-02). "A Theatre of Broken Dreams: Vidiśā in the days of Gupta Hegemony". Holy Ground: Where Art and Text Meet. Gonda Indological Studies. Brill. doi: 10.1163/9789004412071_015. ISBN  978-90-04-41207-1.
  • Bakker, Hans (2004). The Vākāṭaka Heritage: Indian Culture at the Crossroads. Egbert Forsten. ISBN  978-90-6980-148-3.
  • Bakker, Hans, ed. (2008). Mansar - The Discovery of Pravaresvara and Pravarapura Temple and Residence of the Vakataka King Pravarasena II. Library of the University of Groningen. doi: 10.11588/xarep.00001400. ISBN  978-90-367-3688-6.
  • Setubandha is a Prakrit Kāvya of 15 cantos. [1] [2] Why use 'work'?
  • Upinder Singh calls it a "work" in the cited source. In English, the word "work" can be used generally to mean "something produced by the exercise of creative talent or expenditure of creative effort" (Merriam-Webster). But I edited "work" to "poem" anyway to avoid any confusion. Thank you. Bangaru Yachama Nayudu ( talk) 01:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The chronology is not established beyond doubt. [3] Our article does not form such impressions on a reader.
  • He has been often confused with the Kashmriri (likely Huna) counterpart. [4] Probably deserves a mention?
  • Fix the citations.

Specific issues

  • Will appreciate an expansion of lead. MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • In the chronology section, you write The only record that provides a firm chronological basis for Vakataka dynastic history...
  • Does the absence of calendar era permeate across all branches of the Vakatakas? Reading the first line, it seemed that the issue was exclusive to PII!
  • I will appreciate more clarity.
  • Due to the absence of any earlier records that can be precisely dated, different historians have proposed differing dates for Pravarasena's reign is redundant to The precise dates of Pravarasena's reign are not known, because all of Pravarasena's surviving records are simply dated in terms of regnal years rather than a calendar era.
  • I have edited the latter line. Please remove the former.
  • Can you detail (in short; a line or two to each) about how the four scholars (Shastri/Bakker/Kulke/Spink) reached the different dates?
  • I will appreciate a section on sources. See Karkota_Dynasty#Sources, written by me.
  • What was the language used in the charters? What about the content of Tripuri inscription?
  • Lines like The largest number of Vakataka inscriptions belong to Pravarasena's reign. shall be moved there.
  • Many lines are (apparently) not sourced. WP:INLINECITE.
  • I will appreciate that subsections are created in the "Overview" section.
  • One on the territorial extents. (Maybe add a map?) One on wars. And, so on.
  • If the older tradition of the Vakatas were aligned with Shaivism when and why did they shift course? I will appreciate some details.
  • I am unsure about what Pravarasena made a grant for the spiritual welfare is supposed to mean.

References

  1. ^ Rao, Ajay K. (29 October 2014). "Double Reading". Re-Figuring the Ramayana As Theology : A History of Reception in Premodern India. Routledge. p. 66. ISBN  9780415687515.
  2. ^ Bubenik, Vit (15 October 1998). "Historical, Social, and Linguistic Background". Historical Syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhraṃśa). John Benjamins. pp. 23–24. ISBN  9789027236708.
  3. ^ Spink, Walter M. (2011). "A Revised Vakataka Chronology". Ajanta: History and Development - The End of the Golden Age. Handbook of Oriental Studies II. Brill. p. 166. doi: 10.1163/9789004412071_015. ISBN  978-90-04-14832-1.
  4. ^ Pollock, Sheldon (19 May 2003). "Sanskrit Literary Culture from the Inside Out". In Pollock, Sheldon (ed.). Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia. University of California Press. p. 70. doi: 10.1525/j.ctt1ppqxk.9. ISBN  978-0-520-92673-8.

Status query

Bangaru Yachama Nayudu, TrangaBellam, what is the status of this review? As far as I can see, Bangaru Yachama Nayudu has not edited the article since the "Specific issues" section of the review was added on September 4; indeed, they have not edited on Wikipedia at all since mid-August. Under the circumstances, it may be time to close this review as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC) reply

BlueMoonset, I offer no opposition to a close. TrangaBellam ( talk) 06:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
TrangaBellam, as reviewer, please go ahead and close it (see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions#Failing). Or I can do it if you'd prefer. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Having heard nothing further from TrangaBellam, despite significant activity elsewhere on Wikipedia, I am closing the GA nomination as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pravarasena_II/GA1&oldid=1062206280"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE