Talk:Haravijaya

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Ratnākara's Haravijaya is the longest extant Sanskrit mahākāvya?

• Source: Peter Pasedach 2011 p.3–4

• • ALT1: ... that the Haravijaya has been praised in many Sanskrit anthologies and works on rhetorics? Source: Peter Pasedach 2011 p.6–7.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: A mahākāvya not studied very often due to its length and technical difficulty. There are a surprising number of gaps in Wikipedia's coverage of Sanskrit and Dharmic literature generally, I'm happy to bring an article from a neglected area to DYK. regards,

Created by TryKid (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: A QPQ is not needed. Both theses are acceptable sources per the explanation given at Talk:Haravijaya. The article is long enough and new enough with no copyright violations. The nominator can choose the hook. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I am fine with either hook, though ALT0 does indeed sound more impressive, and might work better as an "interesting" hook. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: MA theses are not considered as reliable sources. Cite Pasedach's PhD dissertation instead. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: I could do that for a section or two, but the PhD thesis just doesn't have as much detail—it doesn't talk about the two previous published editions of the text, and doesn't talk as much about the content of this work. I would have to rely on the Masters thesis anyway (only it has the correct verse number for the Suktimutalvali verse; Smith himself misprints it, and the PhD thesis doesn't talk about it). The Masters thesis is cited by Pasedach in the PhD thesis and one published article. WP:THESIS states Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I'm not sure if these citations count as significant even in the small field of Sanskrit literary studies, but I'm inclined to WP:IAR and let it be, specially given the uncontroversial nature of the information. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Works for me; I will pass this after I take a fresh look. ALT1 is quite unimpressive, though; ALT0 looks good. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)