Talk:Neminatha

Untitled

Any realtion between Jain and Yadav's

source needed

I have removed this para: "The name of the Vrishni corporation is also found on a coin which on paleographic grounds dates to the 1st or 2nd century BCE. It seems that the republic was named after Andhakavrishni, the grandfather of Neminatha. If Andhakavrishni is a real person, there seems to be little doubt that his grandson Neminatha was real."

The claim needs reliable source.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry you've had to wait a while but I'm ready to start this review. I know very little about Jainism so please be patient with me.

Lead

• What is the importance of a conch? Why does this matter? Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what is meant by "renounced the world." Did he renounce the killing of animals in particular? I think you could be a little more specific here. Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Please link moksha in the final sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomenclature

• Link "dharma." Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• What are Arista jewels? Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Do we know why his name is spelled similarly to that of the previous Tirthankara? Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

More soon. Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Biography in Jain Tradition

• I'm not sure what the part in parenthesis means in the first sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Per WP:CAPFRAG, there should not be periods in captions unless they follow complete sentences. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Remove double-link to Krishna in the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Also second paragraph: I'm confused. Did tirthankaras have greater physical power that would allow them to best their opponents in fights? Is part of what came with their deity-like stature? Why was there a war and what was it about? Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Third paragraph: Who is Long? And what was this knowledge exactly? Why is it important? Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Fourth paragraph: You never bothered to tell me who any of the other people in the first sentence are. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Is there any way that we could expand the final paragraph? That seems like the crux of the story of who Neminatha is but it's covered very briefly. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

• This section could use major expansion. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Literature

• Per WP:Lists within articles, we should not present content within non-list articles in bulleted format, but should use standard prose. This section also needs to be expanded because the reader has no idea which sources yield what information. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• What do you mean when you say that the conch incident is "given" in a particular text? Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• There is a Harv error in citation 22.
• Under "Sources," if a particular source is not cited in the article, do not use Harvard formatting. Instead, take the source out and put it under "Further reading." If a source is going to be included in the article but is not going to be cited in the body of text, that's where it belongs. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

In Conclusion

• Regrettably, I think that this article is too far away from GA status to be expected to make it at this point, so I've decided to fail the review. I see you, the nominator, have made plenty of edits to the article in the past but only one over the last year. If you want to bring it to GA status, you're going to have to do a lot more work than that. And considering the scope that this demands, it is better done outside the pressure of an open GA nomination. I wish you the best in the future. Display name 99 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99, thanks for your helpful suggestions. I have made some major edits to the article recently. Could you please have a relook and guide me on the points I may have missed. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 02:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, as it has been about a year and a half since I did this review, I did not remember it very well. I took a brief look over it again and I think that's it a little better now but there are still some issues. In the lead: "Neminatha heard the cries of animals being killed for the marriage feast, and moved by the sorrow he renounced the world to become a monk – a scene found in many Jain artwork." There are a couple of grammatical issues here. I think that the view of Neminatha as a legendary character by historians should be given more focus. What are their reasons for believing so? What arguments do Jains have for asserting that he really existed? This might warrant is own section. Also, why his Neminatha one of the four tirthrankaras to attract the most worship? I could not find what this term meant in the article. I understand that there is a link to the article about what a tirthrankara is, but the meaning of terms such as this ought to be briefly explained in the article so that readers unfamiliar with Jain tradition can more easily follow the article. I suggest doing a little bit more work to expand and tidy up the article. Taking it to peer review wouldn't be a bad idea. Perhaps there are editors knowledgeable in Jain tradition who would be willing to help. If things go well, you can renominate it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neminatha/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) 01:25, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jishara (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yo @Capankajsmilyo: I've put my comments here below. Ping me when you get a chance to fix them, yeah? As per usual, you have seven days. Have a great day! Sincerely, Jishara (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yo @Capankajsmilyo: followup ping - it's now been 11 days with no response. I really need you to get back to me as soon as possible. Jishara (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jishara: I've been improving the article as per your suggestions. You can have a look to see if there's anything I might have missed on. It's been a while after which iv returned on Wikipedia editing so I might not be that good. Any and every help and guidance will be appreciated. Thanks Capankajsmilyo (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good - I'll take a look and get back to you soon Jishara (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The MoS is followed. However, in some places organization doesn't make sense - for example, the discussion of textual sources of the Jain inscription shouldn't be under the Ghora Angirasa hypothesis, and I feel as though there needs to be more about some of them than that they exist. Furthermore there are some spelling/grammar errors that I'd ask to fix, and you double-list Ghora Angirasa - going into depth about it in both Historicity and Teachings.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig and I both find no signs of copyvio. Clauses are all cited in line to reliable sources. References section is clear, but many are missing page numbers, ISBNs, etc. However, there are some things that aren't supported by citations - furthered by some of the citations being massive pileups where some sources are difficult to access - at one point in Life Before Renunciation I see 6 sources for one sentence - and the ones I'm able to access don't fully support the sentence. Also, some internal inconsistencies - when did he live, 84,000 years or 81,000 years? was it Jain or Hindu calendar? 54 or 55 days of asceticism? Also, the Kalyani Chalukyas didn't exist at the time you're stating they built the things - they were 10th to 12th centuries, not 7th century. - after all of this is updated I will do a second spotcheck.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Occasionally feels slightly unfocused - in particular in Mount Girmar, and also when it talks about Ugrasena.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There's a bunch of lines with "believed" or "likely" that should state who hypothesized, etc. Especially the may also be identified with Scandinavian Deity one, too - needs to be attributed

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No sign of edit wars or anything like that in the history, so no stability threat.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Relevant pictures with good captions that have clear use justifications, are usable, and are useful in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold