Template:Did you know nominations/Nrisimha Tapaniya Upanishad
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nrisimha Tapaniya Upanishad edit
- ... that Nrisimha Tapaniya Upanishad is one of the first sectarian theologies of Hinduism which focuses on Nrisimha's (pictured) three forms of Om, Atman, and Brahman?
Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC).
The nomination looks pretty good: Article is new enough and long enough; Hook is interesting and within specifications and cited in the article; elements are cited; image meets specs; QPQ done. But the web site Vedarahasya.net is used several times as a citation, and on its main page says it is a personal portal, so there may be reliability issues. Can you find a better source for the material you are citing? (Also note I am a new reviewer and would like a second opinion).Rjmail (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Rjmail: Thanks for the review. Please sign your review. It is also an authentic reference as the same text is contained in these two references [1] and [2] of the Vedanta Spiritual Library (extensively used in the several Upanishads posted and approved on DYK earlier this year), which I have added now. I have retained the earlier refrence also as it gives the text of both the Upanishads in one reference.--Nvvchar. 17:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok Nvvchar I see the new citations. I notice at the bottom of that website it says "Please refer to the published books for the original sanskrit text and commentary." I don't know if you'd like to cite those directly, but if it's sanskrit there's not much I could review about it anyways! So if those cites have been deemed reliable in the past, I won't push the point further, and we're good to go in my opinion. Though again I am a new reviewer and would appreciate a second opinion. Rjmail (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
