Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Chalukya architecture/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Western Chalukya architecture

I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Western Chalukya architecture is an important step in the development of South Indian architecture. The Western Chalukya architecture of 11th and 12th centuries is considered a conceptual link between the 8th century architecture of the Badami Chalukyas and the 12th / 13th century Hoysala architecture. This temple building style flourished in medieval Karnataka in southern India. The topic is well referenced and cited and is on the same lines as the earlier FA, Hoysala architecture. Please provide constructive feedback on format, grammar and presentation that would help make this a FA.

thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "A" capitalized in the article title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I just started that way. If it is an issue, I can move the article and make it lower case.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Article title modified. - KNM ^Talk 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Redtigerxyz

Support ~~Comment~~: As requested by Dineshkannambadi, moved my comments from article talk page here, I have not gone through the whole article yet and may have some more comments to add tomorrow. Also, I will also make minor edits to the article, whereever neccessary IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{fact}} tags added in article~~

Done. DK Added citations. Rectified sentences where applicable. Sometimes the meaning changes unintentionally during cpedits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added more.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can the "Chaturmukha" image be brightened. The shadow is the most prominent thing in the photo.Else i suggest, it be removed.~~

DK This image is considered unique and only second in workmanship to the famous Saraswati image in Gadag (Cousens, p78, 1926). Thats the reason I added the image. I will change the image to a Jain tirthankar which is clearer, if you insist.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) I have added the image of the Jaina also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, it may be the most beautiful piece, but whats the point in keeping it when it blocked by a huge shadow? My suggestion: Brighten it or remove it.~~ About the other Image - Jain tirthankar in "Temple Deities", the same murti can be seen in "Early developments" Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG, thus a case of WP:UNDUE. So one of them should be removed, Preferably the one in "Temple Dieties" be removed as the other one shows the murti as well as Door panel decoration. Update the image heading of Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG in "Early developments" documenting the fact the temple diety is also seen.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done updated image caption, removed repeat image.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try the brightening up myself.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone fix the tilt in Image:Door Panel Decoration JainTemple at Lakkundi.JPG.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Temple Deities, "The temple has two other shrines dedicated to Murthinarayana and Chandraleshwari, the parents of Mahadeva, the Chalukya commander who consecrated the temple in 1112 CE" The 2 commas make the meaning not so WP:OBVIOUS.

DK Done rectified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are the Surya (called Suryanarayana) shrine at the Kasi Visvesvara" Is the temple called Suryanarayana shrine or Suryanarayana, the other name of Surya, is quoted?

DK Done I have corrected this. The Surya is portrayed as Suryanarayana. Hence its still Surya, the Sun god.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Janardana, a name of Vishnu? Thus the temple is probably dedicated to Vishnu. Check who the main diety is. Challenging "Examples of Hindu temples dedicated to deities other than Shiva or Vishnu are ... the Janardana and Durga Temples at Hirekerur in the Haveri district".^[1] The ref does not say so. Thus OR IMO.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Done I have rectified this. Yes, Janardhana is indeed a form of Vishnu. However, the other temples mentioned are clearly neither Shaiva (dedicated to Shiva) or Vaishnava (dedicated to Vishnu). I can remove it if you feel the sentence is unnecessary, though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is 'Dravida' same as the Dravida of the this wiki article or is it an architectural term?If former applies, link the article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Dk Reply The term Dravida style of architecture means architecture that developed in Southern India, distinguishing it from the Nagara style of Northern India (which itself is sub-divided into Kalinga etc based on region, and latina, Sekhari, Bhumija based on shapes of towers). Here Dravida is a general term and a broad Southern classification within which scholars use terms such as Pure Dravida (as in the some temples of Pattadakal and those at Mahabalipuram), Karnata Dravida - the variant that developed in Karnataka region and so on. The Dravida article tends to focus on linguistic groups (which is better accepted) and racial classifications (which as you may know is very controversial). However, one can broadly tie all these classifications together and call it Dravida or South Indian. Instead of linking it to Dravida article, maybe I should just provide a bracketed explanation and call it Dravida (meaning South Indian). What do you think?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC) In fact this explanation already exists in the "Evolution" section in the very begining. Scholars do classify dravida generally as southern Indian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, Dravida redirects to Dravidian people. Maybe something like: Dravida (south Indian), may be added at first occurence. Also sometimes dravida is spelt with a capital "D" (Dravida) , sometimes as lower case. Dravida (if proper noun) or dravida (if common) - one standard form be used. Most of article uses dravida.[1] But IMO, it is a proper noun as it refers to an unique style of architecture. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply Ok. Will do. I will take care of the other concerns also tonight.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply I have made dravida lower case, provided (south Indian) and (north Indian) bracketed explanation for first appearence of the terms dravida and nagara respectively.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding link to Dravidian architecture, which a suitable link for Dravida style of architecture.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is singular and plural of Mandapa same or is the plural Mandapas? Please Check. "On occasion there can be two or more open mantapa." in Basic layout~~.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply mantapas is ok and is used in Kamath (2001), p116.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drammatic overuse of phrase "The best example(s) of" or just "the best" or another variant "The finest examples of".[2] [3]. The article has many instances when a feature is discussed then you have "the best example of" X, Y, Z temples. The repetitive nature of the article makes reading a little boring (If I may say so) after a while. Needs to a copyedit to eliminate this.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have cpedited this repetitive phrase out, for most part.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The best examples of this style are the Muktesvara Temple at Chavudayyadanapura in Haveri district, which was renovated in the 13th century and whose vimana can be best described as sharp and tidy" in Unique plans - who describes the vimana as sharp and tidy? If a personal view, it should be removed.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply I have modified the sentence slightly and provided citation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through whole article again and then only strike this out. Not now, Maybe in the evening. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style, the finest examples of which are " in lead. "examples of" repeated twice. The word "example" 5 times in lead.
"example(s) of" thrice in last para - "Temple Dieties".
"example(s) of" thrice in "Unique Plans"--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have taken care of this issue now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is no info in text form about Stepped well (pictured).~~

Dk Reply Yes unfortunately, none of the books I own describe the stepped wells. But a recent book published by Gerard Foekema "Architecture of Indian subcontinent" has a few lines on it which i have lined to in citation 47.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That raises another issue: I observed that some pictures are placed with no reference in the text, looking out of place. Examples: The Image:Sculpture at Siddhesvara temple at Haveri.JPG is more revelant in Sculpture than in Temple Deities. While the Jain Tirthankar should be in Temple deities. etc. I suggest a rearrangement of pics so that placed "where they are appropriate to the subject." (WP:FA?) --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done movd images.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The windows of Manikesvara Temple (pictured) not discussed in text. The temple finds mention only in the list at the end.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging "Unique Plans" title. Is it really unique - Being only one of its self ? Can it be referenced that the plans are really unique? else it may be a violation of WP:NPOV (a glorification of the subj).--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply Yes, the 16 pointed and 24 pointed uniterrupted plans are isolated cases in India. All stellate plans (according to the author) in north India are the 32 pointed interrupted type, making the 16 and 24 pointed ones unique. However, so as not to draw undue attention to this issue, I have changed the title of that section which has all the citations needed. I can however add more if you so desire. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The {{KarnatakaHistory}} looks out of place in Architectural elements. The template be placed elsewhere or removed.

Done Dk Reply Moved to a less conspicuous location.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the {{Western Chalukya Temples}} template been created if it is to be used for 1 article? Just incorporate whole code in the article. Thats makes editing the article simple. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Here, I request that the template be maintained. This is consistant with all other FA's I wrote. Some reviewers frown upon a "list" of temples and discourage lists. I either created a template for temples in architecture articles or a template for Kings in regular history articles. I want to expand this template and include more temples, further provide date of consecration, kings who commissioned it, may be even a column for articulation style etc (dravida, nagara). This way I can keep all details in one template and link from there to subarticles.Dineshkannambadi 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will look into this.thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will look into your questions and concerns later today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though 2 small things to be done, those do not stop me supporting a great article and I trust Dineshkannambadi will resolve it too. IMO, now; the article is almost "WP:PERFECT". The word "almost" is included as perfection "is not attainable. Editing may bring an article closer to perfection, but ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has a lot of images relative to the amount of text. It makes me wonder whether we need a new category of articles that are more strongly based around images. Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Every image in the article is directly related to an architectural element or development that has been described in the article. I can reduce the images but find another reviewer suggest that the number the images are insufficient. Also, the number of images is consistant with my other architecture related FA.thanksDineshkannambadi 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:Tony1

~~Oppose~~—Improved writing; "small- star" errant space; huge white space in "Notable temples: PLEASE fix! Can't the images go to the side of the table? En dash for year range at top of table. Oh, and en dashes for page ranges in the reference list. Tony (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)1a. Long sentences, often complicated in structure, and redundant wording. Here are a few random examples from the top.[reply]

DK Reply I will deal with these issues right away. I somehow missed your comment. sorry about that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply fixed en dashes. Will work on other issues tommorow. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply Improved white space by adding additional col to template and dated monuments from sources.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK question Not sure what this means - "small- star" errant space. Can you please tell me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply reduced sentence length.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Large and small temples built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style, ~~well known among which are~~ including the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district." It's a longish sentence with an awkward bit in the middle (well-known, please).

Done reduced length of many sentences, improved prose.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south, and in the Bijapur-Belgaum region in the north, where they mix with the remnants of the Hemadpanti temples." What does "they" refer to? What is being mixed?

Done DK Reply clarified and broke into multiple sentences.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caption: "11th c. CE"—c. means "about". You'll have to spell it out.

Done DK Reply spelled it out as "century". The exact date of consecratin of a few monuments is debated based on inscriptional evidence. So even historians simply give the 11th century/12th century rather then exact date.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Though Western Chalukya architecture identifies as an independent tradition by virtue of the various modifications attained by its builders, closer examination reveals that its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida (south Indian) temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions, then under the control of the Badami Chalukyas and Pallava empires respectively." Phew. "Although" is nicer in a formal register. Replace "identifies as" with just "was". Remove "various". "Attained" is strange here. Remove "closer examination reveals that", which is not quite necessary here, is it?

Done DK Reply corrected per above advice and reduced sentence length somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 17:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Study ... has revealed ..."—This is a bit laboured when you give the reference anyway. Why not just state it? "In the W C style, there is/was a distinct ..." I don't know; it's kind of complicated to unravel and simplify, but someone must do it. I'm getting confused about was/is, style/building. Avoid repetitions such as "architectural" in the one phrase. What is "articulation"—link or explain on first occurrence.

Is user Fowler&fowler still around? Or Samir? They might agree to help. Tony (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply the meaning of articulation (according to the scholars referenced) is given in the section "Temple complexes" and subsection "Basic layout" and goes like this, Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation.

Done DK Reply I have reduced usage of "architectural" term, chopped many long sentences into smaller ones, explained "articulation" on first occurance. Will continue to improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will look into these issues as well as others that may exist.Dineshkannambadi 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will continue to look for long winding sentences, complicated sentences and simplyfy it.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 17:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed to find a glitch in the first sentence: "between the 11th and ~~the~~ 12th centuries". "about fifty monuments have survived ~~to date~~" "their style ~~mixes~~ is mixed with the". "These vanished structures"—ungrammatical. Now if these are just random pick-ups in the lead, there must be an awful lot in the rest. Tony (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply I have taken care of these examples you have shown and will continue to cpedit and improve the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will look into this right away. I will also request an experienced copy editor to help me with this.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have requested another user, not connected with the article to do a copy edit and improve prose. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I would like to thank user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and user:Epbr123 for their copy edits and spelling checks to improve the prose in this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A well-referenced, interesting article which we have come to expect from dinesh.Baka man 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - Meets FA criteria. Well-written, and well-cited with ample images. "Architectural elements" section might require some minor alignments regarding images. Overall, very impressive work. - KNM ^Talk 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Well referenced and meets FA criteria. Naveen ^(talk) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support- Another beautiful FA from Dineshkannambadi, well referenced and meets the FA criterias. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Huge whitespace in "Notable temples" section. I see a few wordy phrases ("are known to be"..."it is considered"..."it is known"), POV ("well known among them"..."an indicator of the prolific temple building activity"...""..."undoubtedly an important seat, if not the main seat") and weasel words (""may have been influenced by""..."it seems that"). But it's good enough for GA. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk Reply I will look into your concerns shortly. However, it would be appreciated if you could point out which sentences you see these "phrases" in. As far as blank space, is there a wiki policy on that? I am not sure. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dk Reply I have corrected several weasel words, wordy phrases etc. If you have any more concerns, please indicate the entire sentence and how you want it re-worded.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have reduced white space in "Notable temples". Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Michael Devore
Spelling variants

Here are a few spelling variations I found when looking through the article on the first passes. I'll try to do another couple of passes later today.

Chavudayyadanapura and Chaudayyadanapura

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banashankri and Banashankari

{ DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirehadagalli and Hirehadgalli

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanesvara and Nannesvara

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one variation in the current version. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Done now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basavana and Basavanna

DK Reply This is ok. Basavanna is a person, "Basavana Bagevadi" with single "n" is a place where he was laid to rest.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two are in the template Western Chalukya Temples. One is in the template Karnataka. -- Michael Devore (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look into this today.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply All spelling issues have been corrected.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

While reading through the article I found sentences where the structure is likely in error. I generally do not make higher-level content edits on writing style, leaving the task to those more talented in that area, but I'll list found problematic sentences should you want to make changes.

Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". This reads as a sentence fragment; as the simplest fix I would recommend adding an are before categorised.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, Chalukyan temples were built facing the east – although, exceptions include the Siddhesvara temple at Haveri. Wikipedia prefers the unspaced em dash for interruption, see Wikipedia:Mos#Em_dashes. (In fact, there are editors on WP with a history of making wholesale changes from space en dash to unspaced em dash.) A second problem, potentially, is that the sentence may have too much interruption: an interruptive dash, followed by the interruptive although, immediately followed by a pausing comma. Consider dropping the comma, or perhaps the entire although, (you use a lot of althoughs in the article). This may fall under stylistic decisions, however.

Done DK Reply The article has been copy edited by so many, I am not sure who introduced the "although", though I have no issue with it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other sentences in the article have a space en dash and will probably be altered in the future by one of the aforementioned editors if you don't do it yourself, e.g. at articulation – namely, stones – each, and others.

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temples that fall in this category are the Mahadeva Temple at Jalsingi and the Suryanarayana Temple at Kalgi in modern Gulbarga district. The article probably should have a 'the' before modern. No preceding the is correct if you dropped district, or if district was capitalized as part of the full Gulbarga name. You already have a the on two other Gulbarga district phrases in the article, so consider that, too.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That wraps up my smattering of higher-level copy edit suggestions. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)][reply]

DK Reply I missed your comments which you typed onto the talk page. I have copied it here. I shall look into your concerns today.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment

I did a modest rework of your first paragraph to make it read better (to me), while keeping your original sentence content to match the references. I didn't know what the references say and was therefore conservative in changing things around so as not to make the refs invalid. I'll try to get to the second through nth paragraph as time allows, but it's rather slow going given my unfamiliarity with the subject matter.

Clearly there is still room for improvement, so I won't be putting any scheduled League copyeditors out of work here. Revert if you don't like the changes, my feelings will survive intact. -- Michael Devore (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather more aggressive in reworking paragraph 3 to get a better read, but I think it retains your meaning. Michael Devore (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Western Chalukya architecture is now edited by Finetooth, I won't be making further changes to the article except on the unlikely chance I clearly see a problem. -- Michael Devore (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thank you for your copy edits to improve the prose in the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler

Oppose The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going away for a few weeks, so I won't be around to offer any more comments or to follow up, but perhaps users SandyGeorgia or Tony1 can take another look at the article. Here is the first paragraph of the lead. (The text is in italics and my comments in parentheses. Sorry, if I sound too casual or brusque; I'm in a bit of a hurry.)

Western Chalukya architecture (Kannada: ಪಶ್ಚಿಮ ಚಾಲುಕ್ಯ ವಾಸ್ತುಶಿಲ್ಪ), also known as Kalyani Chalukya or Later Chalukya architecture, is the distinctive building style developed under the rule of the Western Chalukya Empire in the Tungabhadra region of central Karnataka, India, between the 11th and 12th centuries.

(The lead sentence defines the architecture as "the distinctive building style." The reader now wants to know what makes the style distinctive, but the following sentences drop the ball.)

Western Chalukya influence was at its peak in the 12th century, when it dominated the Deccan Plateau.

(The sentence is vague: what does "Western Chalukya influence" mean here? The influence of the empire or of the architecture? There are grammatical problems: the subject is "Western Chalukya influence," and therefore "it" clearly refers to the influence, i.e. "Western Chalukya influence dominated the Deccan Plateau," which makes is doubly vague. Also, the "Deccan Plateau" is a geographical feature; it is like saying that Mughal architecture dominated the Indo-Gangetic Plain (rather than the architecture of northern India). But the main problem for me is one of cohesion/coherence: the reader—after the first sentence—is looking forward to be told what is distinctive; instead, she/he gets a detour, to something that is irrelevant to that focus.)

DK Reply First of all, Western Chalukya influence means "political and cultural" influence, both of which have a direct impact on architecture. I will add this. Secondly, you need to get to the heart of the article to get the details. You cant expect me to explain what their influence was and what their achievements were in the LEAD section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f response to reply: No, you don't need to describe the influence, but clarify what influence you are talking about. Even so, what does it mean when you say, "Western Chalukya (political and cultural) influence dominated the Deccan Plateau?" Do you mean: "The Western Chalukya empire significantly influenced the politics and culture of the entire Deccan Plateau?" As for addressing what is distinctive about the architecture, you do need to say something, i.e. provide some identifying highlights. See Sicilian Baroque or Deconstructivism. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DK Reply Clarified "political influence". Added generally what was distinctive about their style (decorative ornamentation).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, (something must be missing here) where the workshops built monuments with vigour.

(Again, the sentence is not grammatical, but, more importantly, what is the point of the sentence? The reader is still waiting to be told what is distinctive. "workshops built monuments with vigour?" Well, workshops don't really build monuments; they might turn out the building blocks of monuments (sculpture, ornaments etc.), but not the monuments themselves. Also, "vigour" would apply to the artisans or builders, but not really to workshops.)

DK Reply The point is to tell the reader where the architectural activities thrived. When you write of Mogul architecture, would you not want to explain where the architecture thrived?. You write something must be missing here. If you cant tell what is missing, I cant correct it. Again you are wrong in making a assumption. A workshop includes all sorts of guilds; sculptors, architects, masons, even miners who mined out the stone shafts. So your assumption that workshops dont build monuments is wrong. BTW, I used the term used by Dr. Adam Hardy, its not my invention.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f response to reply: 1) The sentence, "Although (no comma here) the central Karnataka region held its position as the nucleus of cultural activity, where the workshops built monuments with vigour." is not grammatical (beyond the minor comma problem). You have the subordinate clause, but what is the independent clause? It can't be, "where the ..." 2) If the point of the sentence is to explain where the architecture thrived, then why not simply say: "The central Karanataka region was the centre of architectural activity."? 3) As for "workshop," here are some dictionary definitions: 1) (American Heritage) "A room, area, or small establishment where manual or light industrial work is done." (Webster's Unabridged) "a small establishment where manufacturing or craftwork is carried on by a proprietor with or without helpers and often without power machinery." If the word "workshop" is being used in an unusual manner, then perhaps it needs to be qualified, for example: "large medieval workshops" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply Added "large medieval workshops", removed "Although".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These structures are a local variant of the basic dravida (south Indian) plan and termed "The Karnata dravida" tradition.

(Well, now it belatedly does mention the architecture, but instead of explaining it, it gives it another name, this time the tradition rather than the architecture, all of which is very confusing to a reader. The reader has no idea what the basic dravida tradition is. Also: "These structures?" You didn't refer to them in the previous sentence. Which structures are you talking about? The monuments?)

DK Reply I will change the word "structure" to "monuments". I will also add in brackets what karnata dravida means. This is a summry style article. You cant expect me to write in detail about pure dravida tradition here. But if you patiently read through the article, you will get an idea, I am sure.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f response to reply: I'm not asking you to detail anything. I guess what I am saying is this. The subject of the sentence is "These structures." The compound predicate is problematic. The structures are not variants of a "plan," but rather built according to a plan. Similarly, the structures are not termed "Karnataka dravida" tradition, but rather define (or form, or belong to) the tradition. Do you mean local variants or regional variants? Do you want "variant" in the singular? The qualifier "basic" assumes some sort of familiarity on the part of the reader: either provide a link, or don't mention it. I guess if I had to write it, I might say something along the lines of: "These monuments, whose plans were regional variants of the pre-existing dravida (South Indian) temple plan, were to define the Karnataka dravida tradition."

Done DK Reply Replaced my sentence with Fowlers sentence for clarity and provided link..Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temples of all sizes built during this era remain as examples of the Chalukyan architectural style.

(The sentence is ambiguous. Does it mean that all temples built during this era were built in the WC style? Or, that temples of all sizes have survived and together define the WC style? Still no explanation of distinctiveness.)

DK Reply I will reword this to ensure it means "Temples of all sizes built by the Western Chalukyas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have clarified who built the large and samll temples.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable among them are the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi in the Koppal district, the Kasivisvesvara Temple at Lakkundi in the Gadag district, the Mallikarjuna Temple at Kuruvatti and the Kallesvara Temple at Bagali, both in the Davangere district. Other monuments with notable craftmanship include the Siddhesvara Temple at Haveri in the Haveri district, Amrtesvara Temple at Annigeri in the Dharwad district, Sarasvati Temple in Gadag and Dodda Basappa Temple at Dambal, both in the Gadag district.

(Well, now the text goes off on an extended tour of the different locations. If the point of the lead is to list the geographical locations of the architectural style, then there should be a map, instead of the photographs, accompanying the text. In other words, an average reader would be hard put to summarize what she/he has read up to this point.)

It's not just the lead paragraph. I see the same problems in all sorts of random places.

DK Reply I dont agree that there should be a map. Now you are being vague by using the term all sorts of random places.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f response to reply: OK, I'll provide a longer list below. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Evolution section: Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders ...

(Doesn't make sense. Modifications of what? If they are modifications, how are they independent?)

DK Reply Please patiently read thru the article and the modifications will jump at you. You cant expect me to write that in the first line of the first section after the lead. Historians normally consider the extent of modifications before calling a style "independent". Going by your arguement, no architectural style can be considered "independent". For example, the Western Ganga style is really not considered independent because it is much closer to pure dravida than Western Chalukya style is. BTW, these are the opinions of experts such as Cousens, Hardy and Foekema, not mine. I have provided the citations for your benefit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's response to reply: I'm simply talking about the sentence: "Although Western Chalukya architecture was an independent tradition by virtue of the modifications achieved by its builders, its basic plan can be traced back to the older pure dravida temple plans that developed simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries in the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regions." It seems you have the independent and subordinate clauses switched. I think you probably mean something along the lines of: "Although the basic plan of the WC style could be traced back to the older dravida style, WC architecture came to define an independent tradition as a result of the many innovations introduced in it." Also, "simultaneously" means "occurring at the same time." You can't have "simultaneously in the 6th and 7th centuries." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply I have replaced my sentence with Fowler's sentence and removed the term "simultaneously".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Temple Deities section: Identification of the original presiding deity to which the temple was dedicated to, in case the temple had been appropriated by another faith, is made possible by inspection of certain features.

(Passive voice makes it too convoluted. "in case the ... faith" is a restrictive phrase. "certain features?" Too vague. Doesn't invite the reader to the sentences that come next.)

DK Reply How do you propose I reword it.? The "certian features" will become clear in the next few sentences. I can remove the second occurance of "to".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's response to reply: Something along the lines of: "If the temple has been converted to that of another faith, the original presiding deity can sometimes still be identified by looking for some salient clues." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Response Changed sentence per above comment.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In section Temple Complexes (Basic Layout): Common to both plans are the use of two or more doorways and porches giving entrance to the main hall. Unlike the northern Indian temples, which have a small closed mantapa leading to the shrine, and the southern pure dravida temples, which have a large open pillared mantapa, the Chalukyan architects found a compromise and retained both.

(How could these sentences have escaped copy editing by a number of editors? It should be "Common to both plans is the use ..." The subject in the next sentence is "the Chalukyan architects." Surely, they are not being compared to north Indian temples. Other problems too.)

Done DK Reply fixed the grammar. Now architects are compared to architects.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will copy edit this sentence.What other problems?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see these problems pretty much everywhere I look. Other problems? Too much jargon in technical explanations. Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I though the idea was to explain what their "modifications " were. I thought the idea was to show the reader how Western Chalukya architecture" varied from pure southern and pure northern Indian styles. Now you you say "too much technical details", earlier you said "not enough detail". I am confused.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Response I am going to break up this mass into smaller manageable pieces.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F&f response to reply: Well, in the lead I was asking for some identifying highlights, some salient features, something brief to hang my hat on. In the other sections, I find there is too much jargon, or rather an uneven combination of vague words and jargon. Look at the first paragraph of the Basic Layout section: The plan of the Western Chalukya temples can be classified into three features: the basic structure, the features of architectural articulation and the decorative features.

DoneDK Reply Dr. Foekema says "distinguished into three features", but I have used "subdivided" as you suggest.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The basic structure defines whether the shrine has a pradakshina (path for circumambulation) or not, the size of the shrine and of the sanctum inside, and the basic distribution of the building. Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation. These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners. There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types.

Done DK reply The term "whole of shrine" is confusing. Its the "entire wall of the shrine that pocesses the projections and recesses".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture".

In the first sentence you must mean "subdivided into three components." To "classify" is to assign to a class. "architectural articulation" needs to be explained briefly in simpler words, and not just as you do in a later sentence by describing what it is included in it. The next sentence "The basic structure defines whether the shrine has ..." is a disaster. The basic structure doesn't define ...; rather, it is those ... properties that define the basic structure. What is "basic distribution" (too vague)? Is it the blueprint or floor plan? Need a better choice of words. Look at the predicate: one part starts with "whether;" the others don't. That's like saying, "The Health report defines whether a person smokes or not, height, weight, blood lipid levels and basic health," when one means something like, "The Health report includes information on whether a patient smokes or not, as well as the weight, height, and blood lipid levels of the patient; in addition, information from a physical exam is included." The next sentence, "Ornamental components forming patterns that include the whole of the shrine such as projections and recesses of the outer wall are considered as architectural articulation" is too ambiguous. "Patterns that include the whole of the shrine?" (The shrine is not a pattern.) "such as projections and recesses" (Are they the ornamental components or the patterns?) Next sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate or square/rectangular" (The jargon is not explained.) In the next sentence: "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners and the latter have only four projecting corners." you mean, "In the former, all or nearly all projections form projecting corners; in the latter, only four do."

Done DK Reply I have rectified the meaning which may have changed over various copy edits.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, the grammar aside, it seems to be a clunky explanation of those terms. The next sentence, "There are two basic kinds of architectural articulation: the southern Indian dravida and the northern Indian nagara types." gives us some information, but we don't know what to do with the information, as the sentences that follow talk about something entirely different.

DK Reply Is it the right thing to do (in a summary style article) to go into explaining what is dravida and what is nagara here.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence, "Finally, the depictions that stand more or less by themselves, including miniature architectural components on pilasters, miniature buildings, sculptures and complete towers, categorised as "figure sculpture". is incomplete. Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply Sorry but I dont see how the sentence is incomplete. Could you please explain how? The correct word is "representations", not "depictions". I have made that change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I have read your lengthy set of negative comments and I shall try hard to solve as many of your issues with the article as possible. Its too bad you wont be around to acknowledge my efforts, now that you plan to go away for Christmas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will try and make suitable changes to the article to improve the grammar and clarity, though this may take me a day or two, given the number of issues.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK comment Rewritten in clear, grammatical language, this article has gone through formal peer-review and has undergone several rounds of copyedits by different editors. If you have specific issues on any grammatical issues, please point them out, and I will try addressing them. Again, thanks for your efforts on reviewing this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattisse

Comment - Agree with Fowler&fowler «Talk» 's statement above: "Where is the predicate? Do you really want "depictions?" This is just one paragraph. I see this pretty much in every paragraph of the text. That is why I think this is not an easy fix: the article needs to be withdrawn, organized clearly, rewritten in clear, grammatical language, and then resubmitted." Fowler&fowler «Talk»

DK Comment I have gone through your comments and find them very vague and unclear. You seem to have a problem with many sentences, but you dont state what is the actual problem.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has noticeably improved over the last few days, much to your credit, I believe you want the article to be the finest it can be. Why not take the time to make this article sparkle, rather than rushing it through FAC? For example, IMO, the article suffers from the following problems:

The writing style is dull and clumsy, not sparkling as befits an FA e.g. "The features that became common in the 11th century were used in addition to adding new features."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There remain many ungrammatical and oddly worded sentences: e.g.

"Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:Fowler&fowler on Dineshkannambadi's response to Mattisse's review. I am afraid you are being a little cavalier in your responses to Mattisse's criticisms. Her concerns are neither vague nor unclear. She's doing you a big favor by pointing out examples of prose that would not be acceptable in any Wikipedia article, let alone an FA. It is not her job to provide the corrections as well. If you are truly unable to figure out the problems (both grammatical and stylistic) in a sentence like, "Western Chalukyan figure sculptures are well rendered, one such sculpture worthy of mention is of the Hindu Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati Temple in Gadag city," I am afraid you don't inspire much confidence that you will attend to the remaining deficiencies in the text. You say that the article went through a formal peer-review. That doesn't justify the presence of mistakes. We are not talking about "mistakes" that are (in reality) disguised stylistic preferences of individual editors, but glaring mistakes of grammar and diction that no one would disagree about. If you think she is being vague, why don't you invite any of the editors who participated in the formal peer-review or for that matter any of the editors who have gone on record as supporting this FAC to defend Mattisse's examples. I will provide more criticism later in the day, but I would urge you to take Mattisse's comments seriously. If you don't understand them, find someone from the League of Copy Editors who does. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But in the overall arrangement of the main temple and of the subsidiary shrines, they leaned towards the northern style ....",

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also "found popularity" is oddly worded. Words like linga should be either linked to an explanation or explained.

DK Reply was already linked.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"At Hangal, the architects were able to provide a sekhari superstructure to the shrine while the lower half received a nagara articulation and depictions of miniature sekhari towers. This style of workmanship with a square plan are found at Muttagi and Degaon."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In all three cases, the shrine is a 16-pointed uninterrupted star, a plan unfound anywhere else in India..." - there is no such word as "unfound".

DK Reply corrected typo. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th-century characteristics become prominent."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These differences manifest in the articulation and in the shapes and ornamentation of individual architectural components, giving them a unique place in Chalukyan architecture."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much weasel wording and passive voice. e.g. "Sometimes called the Gadag style of architecture, it is considered a precursor to the famous Hoysala architecture of southern Karnataka". And again in the very the next sentence: "It is known that the early builders the Hoysalas employed originated from important centres of medieval Chalukyan art." And again, "This change is observed in the Muktesvara Temple..."

DK Reply Your concerns are vague and unclear. Please suggest a better sentence Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would stress that words that are likely to be unfamiliar to the average reader should be either linked or explained. There are many words in the article that I do not know the meaning of.

DK Reply This is perhaps the primary problem, in that you may not be intimate with or have the basics of Hindu architecture. Please point out which words you dont understand and I shall link orexplain it .Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are just examples randomly picked. If you go through the article following the many good suggestions given to you above by many other editors, it should noticeably improve the article. You tend to use their suggestions on the sentence they provide as an example, rather than generalizing the suggestions to the whole article. You cannot expect the FA editors to copy edit the entire article.

DK Reply I though it was a reviewers responsibility to read the article fully and then make suggestions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I question the basic overall organization of the article. Are the sections presented in an order that makes sense? It is hard for me to follow the article, but maybe others feel differently. Mattisse 15:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Again you are being vague. What is overall basic organization.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Mattisse, thanks for your review of the article. I believe all these changes you suggest can be made within the FAC itself. I dont see the need to pull it out. thanks for your effort in improving the article. If you have specific suggestions how the article can be improved, plese spell it out and I will surely consider it.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Fowler&fowler's comments of December 18

(I am traveling. I managed to find a weak connection to the internet; hope I can stay connected.) I am afraid there are still too many problems. I see some improvement, but mostly in the parts that I have already commented on. Here, for example, is the second paragraph of the lead. There are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. (PS. ~~I haven't had the time to read user:Mattisse's comments with great care, but I agree with most of them.~~ I have now read user:Mattisse's comments and I agree with all of them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts), and about 50 monuments have survived, an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects.

"The centre of these architectural developments was the region of Dharwad district (presently divided into Dharwad, Haveri and Gadag districts)," The region of a district is the region that lies within that district, not a larger region including that distict. "Darwar district," linked to the present-day district, can't be divided into other present-day districts that lie outside it. Better to say, "The centre of these architectural developments was a region encompassing the present-day Dharwad district and including areas of present-day Haveri and Gadag districts."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"presently divided." The primary meaning of "presently" is "in a little while," or "soon." Although the word is sometimes used to mean "at the present time," this usage is disputed. It is better to say "currently." This, of course, will become moot if you rephrase as above.
"and about 50 monuments have survived." Where? Better to say, "... , ~~and~~ where about 50 monuments have survived"

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"an indicator of the temple building activity of the Western Chalukyan architects" Even one temple is an indicator of temple building activity. I think you want to say, "where nearly fifty monuments have survived, evidence of the widespread/prolific temple building of the West Chalukyan workshops. (You have already used the word "workshop" to include architects, craftsmen, miners, etc. Clearly they all produced the monuments.) Or, alternately simple stop after "have survived," since you have already referred to the "vigour" of the workshops.

Done DK Reply Done. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The influence of this style is seen up to the Kalyani region and beyond in the north-east, in the Bellary region in the east, in the Mysore region in the south.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"up to the Kalyani region and beyond." Redundant. If the influence extends beyond a region, it certainly extends up to the region. Need an "and" before the third comma. Better to say something like, "The influence of this style extended beyond (weasel word though: how much beyond?) the Kalyani region in the north-east and up to the Bellary region in the east and the Mysore region in the south."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Bijapur-Belgaum region to the north, their style is mixed with the remnants of that of the Hemadpanti temples.

"remnants" means "that which remains," "remainder," or "residue." What does "remainder of a style" mean? I think you probably mean something like: "Among temples found in the Bijaput-Belgaum region to the north, the West Chalukyan style still predominates, however, influence of the Hemadpanti style can also be detected."

DK Reply No. that is not what I want to say. The author just says "the two styles mix" and in fact implies the influence of Chalukyan style is not obvious but exists never the less. He does not say the Chalukyan style predominates. He uses the word "remains of Hemadpanti temples". I have simplified the sentence now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the west, apart from a few temples in Konkan, the Western Ghats practically acted as a barrier to the propagation of this style.

Dangling modifier. "apart from a few temples in Konkan" the temples didn't act as a barrier. (I am assuming the temples are the exceptions.)
"practically" is generally informal usage. "in effect" or "likely" would be better. A better way to say this would be: "Although a few West-Chalukyan temples can be found in the Konkan region, the presence of the Western Ghats likely prevented the style from spreading westwards (or, to the west).

Done I have corrected the sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that remains of Western Chalukya monuments are their temples, built in the Shaiva, Vaishnava and Jain religious traditions. None of their military, civil and courtly architecture have survived. These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood and hence were unable to withstand invasions.

This is a crucial piece of information. It comes too late in the paragraph (after we have already talked about the temples). It should come first.

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"None of their military, civil and courtly architecture ~~have~~ has survived."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These structures ..." you can't have certainty in the second half of the sentence when you only have probability in the first. Better to say, "These structures may have been built with mud, brick and wood, and therefore may not have withstood invasions." Or, "These structures, which may have been built with mud, brick and wood, may not have withstood invasions."

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map: Lastly, I think a map of the region is an absolute must for an article with so much reference to geography, especially when most links themselves don't have any locater maps and when the geography will likely be unfamiliar to most readers.

DK Reply I can have a map request made, since I dont know how to draw maps.

user:planemad is the expert. So, when the map gets done, it will contain "dots" showing the location and the corresponding place names.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, as you can see, there are problems in every sentence of the paragraph. And this is still the lead. I will try to add something more, if I can find another connection later in the day.

As I had said above, this article cannot be fixed on the fly by responding to sample copy edits provided by the reviewers. It has too many problems of grammar, style, and cohesion for that. It needs to be withdrawn, reworked on with care, and then resubmitted. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will take a close look at your comments later tonight. As far as improving grammar, style etc, we are doing it right here and quite well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK comment Fowler, I would like to thank you for the effort you are taking to improve the article, even when you are travelling. Your effort is appreciated.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Fowler. This seems to continue to need significant copy-editing.--Keerllston 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I have requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. So, when that happens, I will provide full co-operation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by user:Mattisse

Comment I am wondering if organization could be improved discussing sculpture in one place under the heading of Scupture instead of some discussion of sculpture under Deities, especially since that section is so long? Also, I am wondering why Deities is the second important heading? It seems like that section covers a mixture of topics. At least some of the information in that section might fit better (for the sake of clarity) under other headings Mattisse 00:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I understand your concern. There are two sentences in the Deity section that one could argue belongs in the sculpture section. The first is the sentence is Apart from an occasional exaggeration in its pose, each principle deity had its own pose depending on the incarnation or form depicted. Consistent with figure sculpture in other parts of India, these figures were deficient in musculature and drapery. The second sentence is about the sculpture of Goddess Sarasvati at the Sarasvati temple in Gadag and its drapery and ornamentation etc. The reason I kept them in the deity section is that the discussion pertains directly to the main deity of the temple, not sundry/decorative/epic frieze scuptures. This I felt was significant enough to keep it in the Deity section. Regarding why the Deity section comes second; It would have been the first heading, except I felt I should add a section on Evolution and that it should preceed Deities.

However, if there is consensus to move the above two sentences from Deities to the Sculpture section, I would be happy to do so.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: very good article! --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by user:Finetooth

Possible typo In the "Stellate plans" section, a sentence says, "Between the 12th and 13th Centuries there are no sharp differences between the styles, although the 12th century characteristics become prominent." Since the rest of the paragraph describes change, I wonder if perhaps the second mention of 12th century is a typo. Shouldn't the text say, "...although the 13th century characteristics become prominent"? Finetooth (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply No. The second mention of 12th century is accurate. Dr. Foekema says some 12th century chracteristics were reinforced in the 13th century.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time stamps in photos The red time stamps on some of the photos are distracting. The eye is drawn to them instead of to the temples and their architectural details. Since the date and time of data generation are given on the Wikimedia page associated with each photo, time stamps on the photos are superfluous. If you can possibly remove the time stamps from your originals and upload unstamped versions, it would improve the article. Finetooth (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK ReplyI will request someone who does this kind of image editing, though this as one may expect, will take time.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Where possible, I will leave out the date on the image, rescan the photgraph, if it does not impact the image in some way and re-upload. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The images which have time stamps are from my photo CD collection. To remove the date stamps, I would have to process these images into positives, scan them back in and crop the date stamp, hopefully not impacting the image negatively. I will see how well this tuns out. There are cases where I cant crop the image manually, but can request a graphics person to erase them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply Time stamps removed from images by user:Papa November.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations, simple diagrams
Although the photos are extremely helpful to this article, I long for simple visual diagrams or illustrations of some of the geometric complexities presented here. It is difficult to convey an accurate sense of these structures using only words. For example, I can't quite wrap my mind around this sentence: "These are either stepped/stellate (star shaped) or square/rectangular. In the former, all or nearly all projections are projecting corners and in the latter, there are only four projecting corners." An illustration or simple line drawing might be helpful here to show the meaning of "projecting corners" and how they differ in the two basic plans. In this context, what is a "corner?" Is a corner different from a "projecting corner?" Is "projecting corner" the opposite of "recessed corner?" If so, these terms are probably unfamiliar to many readers, who will need all the help they can get. Finetooth (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The corners the authors refer to , I believe , are projecting corners and not the same as any ordinary corner or a recessed corner which would be a vertex. As such, in an uninterrupted stellate floorplan, the number of projecting corners would equal the number of recessed corners or vertices. This is why I provided the first two images, to present the general idea. Regarding line drawings, I will explore how I can do it, if possible. This is ofcourse time consuming.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure. I understand what you are saying above about the number of projecting corners equaling the number of vertices. Would it be accurate to call these corners "points"? I am thinking of the points of a star (not a real star but a stylized representation of a star). When imagining a stellate design, I see "points" rather than corners, though this may be an oversimplification of the architectural reality. Your mention of the first two images is logical. Let me think a bit more about this. Perhaps a sentence in the main text could direct readers to the particular photo or photos that illustrate the geometry under discussion. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Yes. Could you word it to that effect and redirect a reader to those images.?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by user:Finetooth December 25, 2007: I've tried, but I don't think I can. My best shot at improving this particular sentence is, "If stepped and stellate, these components form many projections, and if square or rectangular, they form only four projections." I eliminated what I felt was the confusion caused by the word "corner," which I don't think is necessary and which, I think, means "point." However, I'm not happy with my fix, partly because I'm not sure "stepped and stellate" is an accurate rendering of "stepped/stellate". Perhaps "stepped or stellate" is more accurate; it seems to me that at least the right-hand section of the Mahadeva Temple at Itagi is stepped but not stellate. In short, I am confused, which is not a good thing for a copyeditor to be. If I make changes beyond the roughly 150 I've already made, I run the risk of introducing error where none exists.

DK Reply Actually its not "stepped and stellate". As explained in one of the sections, a stellate floorplan was obtained from a stepped plan by rotating the projections by 11.5 degrees. The author sees both of these as one type of articulation, the other being the square plan. I have corrected your cpedit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it.

Done DK Reply I have provided many English language equivalents in brackets to terms such as "dravida", "nagara", "Bhumija", "Sekhari", "latina" etc., in some cases provided links to stubs like finial, aedicular, Stepwell etc. The terms "articulation", "interrupted", "uninterrupted" etc. is explained in brackets and in some other cases, the meaning of a particular Indian term is explained in the very same sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the visual complexity of the subject matter, I'm still of the opinion that diagrams, drawings, and, yes, a map would probably be helpful. I didn't withdraw my earlier suggestion that illustrations beyond the photographs might be helpful. What I said was, "Yes, my request may be unreasonable. I would not know how to do such illustrations myself, and I would groan loudly if someone suggested that any of my articles needed them. Also, line drawings might or might not work. I'm not sure." That was a hedge, not a retraction. If I were the main author and no other way to solve the problem of lack of clarity could be found, I would figure out how to do (or how to get someone else to do) the illustrations, maps, or whatever, even if it made me groan.

I've tried to think of other ways to make the subject matter clear, but I've failed. The first two images that you mention are positioned far away from the text that they might help explain. Moving them might damage the layout; in addition, those two images might be needed elsewhere as examples of other ideas in the text. I thought of assigning numbers to each photograph and adding notes such as "See photograph 4" in parentheses in the main text, but this seems clumsy; it would force readers to hunt for the photo, which might be anywhere. So, I've come back to thinking the article needs two more things I can't supply: visual aids and clear definitions of key terms. Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree more with user:Finetooth's comments, especially her/his last sentence. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply The definitions have been provided now. If any are left out, which I may have felt is self explanatory, please point them out and I will make the meaning explicit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Providing clear definitions of key terms is something I can easily do and will work on it right away. Visual aids take time and help from other users and can't be done overnight, but can be done on a ongoing basis even after the FAC closes. There are many types of floorplans; such as 16 pointed, 32 pointed, 24 pointed types in the interrupted and uninterrupted categories, stepped diamond its variations. So do we want to flood the article with only floorplans? You are right, line drawings can and will generate more questions and more clarifications. I question if this is within the scope of a summary style article. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Reply Provided line diagrams for the four main types of floorplans: interrupted stellate, uninterrupted stellate, square and stepped diamond. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code, as this causes problems when it is archived (if necessary, use bolded headings)." - heading code removed and replaced with bolded headings--Kiyarrllston 04:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching this. I was responsible, not DK. Finetooth (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by user:Fowler&fowler December 25, 2007: I agree with user:Finetooth that diagrams are needed. In fact, they are a must. (I had been meaning to mention it last week, but couldn't find the time.) It is impossible to figure out what is what from the photographs alone. The explanations of the temple layout are still dense. For example, "open hall" is certainly not standard usage in English for what looks like a "pillared porch." Given the many meanings of the word "hall," terms like "open hall" and "closed hall" are best avoided in a Wikipedia article (even if they are used in the history books the main author has consulted). Similarly the explanation of "articulation" is still very poor. What is the wall of a shrine, when the word "shrine" is itself not clearly defined? Is it really the outer wall, or is it the outer surface (or outside) of the tower. As far as I can tell, stepped/stellate refers to the staggered star-like cross-sections (akin to mini-stories) that go into creating the pyrimidal tower. I am guessing that the inside of the tower is polygonal and not star-shaped, but I'm not sure. While a portion of the outer wall below the tower seems to have a cross-sectional shape similar to the tower, not all of it does, and in any case that shape is not evident from the photographs. For all these reasons, it is absolutely imperative that the text be accompanied by diagrams. As I have already suggested to the main author a number of times, I feel that he should withdraw the article from the FAC process, add a map of the geographical locations, add simplified diagrams of the temple cross-sections explaining various terms like stepped-stellate, closed/open halls, etc., organize the article better, improve the language (i.e. make is less discursive—not just have it copy-edited), let is simmer a little and then resubmit for the FAC. However, for some reason, he seems resistant to this idea. I will look at the text in a few days (when I have more time) and add comments on the language. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Fowler, the earlier reviewer has withdrawn his statement about "line drawings". I dont believe line drawings are necessary. This is a summary style article, not my PhD. thesis. ~~Moreover, I dont have the tools or the experience to draw line drawings and maps. If you know someone who does, please inform me and I will contact that person.~~ Secondly, the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar. BTW, you have already given your opinions on the article, which have been satisfied. Feel free to continue to read the article and propose changes. If your proposals are reasonable, I will surely try to accomplish them. Thank you for you time.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, user:Finetooth has not exactly withdrawn her/his suggestion, but rather is being polite in view of your reluctance. Secondly, that has nothing to do with my assessment that the article emphatically needs diagrams. I didn't get that idea from user:Finetooth. As I explained above, it was the first thing I thought of when I read the details of the temple layout, which remain poorly explained even as I write. The vast majority of the Architecture FAs do in fact have diagrams, floor plans, or vertical cross-sections, as do both the Britannica and Encarta articles on Indian architecture. As far as I am aware, many of the Wikipedia architecture FAs are written in summary style and very likely none of are extracts from Ph. D. dissertations. Here is a list of a few. Please contact the primary authors and find out how they made their diagrams. It is imperative that you do.

7 World Trade Center, Angkor Wat, Belton House, Borobudur, Buckingham Palace, Cathedral of Magdeburg, Freedom Monument (Riga), Heian Palace, Holkham Hall, House with Chimaeras, IG Farben Building, Palace of Westminster, Palazzo Pitti, Palladian architecture, Point Park Civic Center, Prince's Palace of Monaco, Queluz National Palace, Sanssouci, Scottish Parliament Building, Shotgun house, and West Wycombe Park

Done DK Reply Line diagrams have been added per request.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same holds for the map of the region showing the locations of the different monuments. You had stated earlier that you would contact a map-maker, but haven't stated since how that is progressing. As for your remarks, "... the original requirement was a thorough copyedit which has been done by two reviewers who have been positive and gracious enough to spend much time on this article, bringing about clarity and better grammar." Whose original requirement was this? From the start, I have unequivocally stated that the article's problems are much deeper than ones that would be fixed by a simple copy-edit. In fact, I began my first set of remarks (of December 17, 2007) by, "The article has two major problems: it has too many grammatical and stylistic errors for a prospective FA, but more importantly it has major problems of cohesion. In my opinion, this is not an easy fix. It needs more than just a careful copy-edit; it needs rethinking about its focus. The article should be withdrawn, its text should be organized clearly, rewritten clearly, and then resubmitted." As for the copy-editors spending time on editing the article, that of course is very creditable and they deserve everyone's thanks, but I myself have spent time copy-editing the article line by line, as my many remarks above indicate; as an FA reviewer I shouldn't have to do that. An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be have been a Wikipedia FAC in the first place. Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process? Lastly, as I have indicated above, in a few days, when I have more time, I will make the determination whether the copy edits have taken (i.e. helped the article enough) and add further comments here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Fowler, when you write that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be a Wikipedia FAC in the first place you are questioning the English language capabilities of people such as user:Finetooth and others who have graciously come forward to help me out, who have copyedited several FAC's towards a FA. This attitude I must say is not acceptable in wiki. Regarding any stylistic, grammatical, prose changes you further expect in this article, please find concensus with other copy editors. I cant trample on the edits of one copy editor to make another happy, unless I am convinced your suggestion is more appropriate. If you can find concensus, I can make the changes. What you may want in prose, someone else may not want. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DK reply by user:Fowler&fowler: No, at no time have I been critical of user:Finetooth's edits; far from it, I am impressed by them. It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or rather a Shakespeare) to see that she/he is a superb editor. I did make an inadvertent tense-shift (which I have corrected since), but, even so, it is clear from my sentence, "An article such as this, that had glaring mistakes of grammar and diction—mistakes that are considered unacceptable in high-school, let alone in the Ph. D. thesis you don't propose to write—shouldn't be <have been> a Wikipedia FAC in the first place," that I was questioning the wisdom of submitting this article as an FAC in late November, not questioning the worth of user:Finetooth's or User:Michael Devore's edits. To the extent that I may have inadvertently implied the latter, I offer my unequivocal apology. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler wrote (copy and paste from above comment). Has it occurred to you that you might be both exploiting and exhausting other editors' goodwill by continuing to be recalcitrant in leaving this article in the FAC process?

DK Reply I am grateful to so many experienced copy editors who have come forward to help me. Fowler, Has it occurred to you that you may be both expoliting and exhausting another editor's goodwill by continuing to make extreme and unreasonable demands and asserting that this article must be removed from the FAC process?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Comment Based on some of the responses from reviewers, I had requested the League of Copyeditors to help me out in cleaning up grammar and other issues on this article. user:Finetooth graciously completed a thorough copy edit job. user:Michael Devore also has played an important role in this process.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose continuing ths FAC - When this becomes an attack on the editors who help you, then I believe it is time to withdraw the article and carefully rewrite it. You seem to be expecting others to write the article for you. Editors are requesting that the article be grammatically correct and well written which is not being oppositional. Your opposition to suggestions, such as you were to my simple grammatical points above, is part of what is exhausting to other editors. I think the article is unorganized, the wording dense and unclear, and multiple errors still exist. Every editor gets exhausted before going through the entire article and there is no one who has carefully picked through the whole article. Bracket is still not disambigulated! (You do not mean bracked as punctuation do you?) No one has gotten that far yet. None of the edtors that helped you so much can rewrite and reorganized the article for you. You seem to forget how much time and effort Fowler&fowler «Talk» has already given you. League of Copy Editors cannot rewrite and reorganize the article. As you say, you have had many copy editors and the job is still not done. Mattisse 01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dk reply I have already mentioned above that I will be disambiguiating any complicated architectural terms in the next few days. BTW, I dont expect others to write my articles. The article is grammtically far better than it was two weeks back, that is the point I am trying to make. That is what needs to be appreciated instead of scorning at others efforts. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with Matisse: FAC is not Peer Review - this has gone on long enough.--Kiyarrllston 02:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Matisse and Kiyarr. It's time to move on. Finetooth (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Finetooth, Matisse, and Kiyarr. It's time to pull the plug on this FAC. Since I am supposed to be on vacation (and since I am getting grief for getting back on WP), I will not be revisiting this page. However, I can do no better than to quote user:Finetooth: "If I were the main author, I would try to write for a hypothetical reader living thousands of miles from southern India and having little knowledge of it. I would imagine a reader fluent in English but untutored in architecture and completely ignorant of the temple architecture of India. For this reader, terms such as "articulation", "dravida," "nagara," "interrupted star," and "uninterrupted star" and many others must be explained as clearly as possible as early in the article as possible. This will be no easy task, but I have no doubt it can be done. However, a copyeditor with no special knowledge of the subject can't do it." I also agree wholeheartedly with user:Finetooth that this article "visual aids and clear definitions of key terms." I feel this task is not something that can be hurried through, but needs time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 19:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Comment A request has been made to user:planemad to draw up a map that shows places and placenames where this architecture thrived. I will have a map inserted as soon as he is free to complete the job.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Comment The good news is user:planemad has agreed to do the map for me.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Comment Fowler, thanks for all your efforts to improve the article. As I have mentioned earlier, I will be explaining any and every complicated term in this article in the next day or two. Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts.thank you again.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments by user:Fowler&fowler: "Your presence or absence from the article will not hinder my efforts." Not sure how to take that. In any case, let me be perfectly clear: what the three editors (user:Finetooth, user:Mattisse, and Kiyarr) and I are saying above is not that this article can be fixed in a few days and that we have confidence in your ability to fix it. Rather, we are saying that the article has deeper issues of clarity and organization, which remain unresolved. In addition, it needs visual aids—illustrative diagrams and a map, of the kind that the many architecture FAs listed above have. Most importantly, we are saying that this article has been an FAC long enough (exactly a month today); it has had help from numerous editors, including user:Finetooth from the League of Copy-editors, who is concurring in this opinion; it is therefore time to end this FAC. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 11:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments by User:Mattisse: I wish to make clear that my mentioning problems in cohesion, organization, grammar and wording with the article was in no way "scorning at others efforts" (the many editors that have worked so hard to try to improve your article) as you allege above. I have the utmost respect for those fine editors who, in my opinion, have gone beyond the call of duty in trying to help this article, especially this late in the FAC process. Mattisse 14:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DK Response Thank you both for your valuable comments and suggestions. The effort to improve the article continues on my side. I am currently working on disambiguiation and providing a map that was expected for the location of architectural developments. Thank you once again. Once these tasks are completed, which should be in a few days, I will indicate that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK response clarifications, meanings and disambiguiation of complicated terms have been dealt with with links, bracketed meanings. If anymore exist, please point them out and I will clean it up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done DK Response Line diagrams of the main floorplans have been added. These were drawn by user:Papa November who used the diagrams from my earlier uploaded raster images. Thank you user:Papa November.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close per Mattisse, Fowler&fowler and others. The article has major prose and organisation problems. You cannot quickly address the issues during a FAC. You should improve the article, give it a copy-edit and PR, then try GA first. Then if it becomes a GA, copy-edit and PR again, until you think the article is ready for FAC. --Kaypoh (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agree with the above statement by Kaypoh. I would add that the article needs an entire reorganization. Subjects should not be explained in more that one place in the article. The heading "Deities" covers several subjects. And why is "Deities" the first and most important heading anyway, as I read nothing unusual about them regarding Western Chalukya architecture in this section? Mattisse 16:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by HPN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, "Deities" are very important when discussing any South Indian architecture. The architectures are influenced by the choice of deities (and thus by the stories in puraNas about them) immensely. As I see it, the present section is not carrying anything outside the subject. In fact, there is some very valuable information about salient features that aid to identifying the architecture in that section. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - An excellent effort. Took me several days of free time to go through this exhaustive article. This article will be one of those that would be cherished the most. The photos are priceless and of great quality. It is conspicuous that a lot of effort and research has gone into this. Congratulations.

I have one doubt though: should "Amrtesvara Temple" become "Amruteshwara Temple"? "sha" has become "sa" on all occasions. Is this intended? As far as I know, the letter "sha" becomes "sa" in Tamil language. We could also consider using phonetic notations (if permitted) while mentioning the names of each temple. Cheers. --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Your question on the sha vs sa in Kannada deity/temple names is not surprising. In modern Kannada sha is prevalent and may have replaced sa, just as ha has replaced pa since the 12-13thth century. However, the books I have sourced from keep to sa. I tried to compare these books I have referenced from against other articles and see a mixture of usages. So I just kept to the method followed by the authors. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Dinesh. I'm curious to know what the majority of authors have used. These are originally Sanskrit words, not Kannada (There's also a typo where it says "Amrtesvara"). If the author is a native speaker of Tamil, he would've obviously preferred "sa" instead of "Sha" as they are not accustomed to pronouncing "Sha". Shouldn't we be writing the names the way they are pronounced presently in the region? --H P Nadig ^{\Talk \Contributions} 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Actually the authors are not from India. Foekema is Dutch, Hardy is English and Cousens is perhaps English, not sure. Regarding how the names sould be written, I have had some trouble with this issue. The authors may have used the names directly from old_Kannada inscriptions. As an example, in Modern Kannada, we call the great Chalukya King "Pulakeshi II". But his own personal edicts call him "Polekesi" where "kesin" is originally Sanskrit for "hair". Some authors even use "Pulakesi". Since I am providing citations from books, I felt it is better to stick to the authors' way of writing it, just to avoid controversy. I can try and look up what other authors such as Dhaky, Sinha, Fergusson call the temples. And as far as the typo is concerned, the book says "Amrtesvara" as opposed to "Amrutesvara". thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply here [4] is a link to a book on a Kalyani (Western) Chalukya temple construction, "The Temple of Muktesvara at Caudadanapura" by Dr. by Vasundhara Filliozat, a visiting scholar from Univ. of Paris. She too uses the "sa" designation for the temple. Another example is [5] in item #29, the "si" usage for a temple name, instead of the modern "shi" usage.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why have scanned images of (simple) diagrams from a book been added to the article and justified as images of book covers? They are surely not that. In any case, a book cover is allowed under non-free (fair) use if the article discusses (only) that book. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply When I choose the options for the correct license for the image file, it was "book cover or a page from the book". But once I went a few steps further into uploading the images, I could only find the "book cover" option. I will look into this issue ASAP, perhaps as early as today, and have it corrected. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply The license issue has been resolved.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I believe the article is in a very good shape now after so much work being done. I support promotion of this article to FA. Gnanapiti (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

^ K. Kannikeswaran. "Templenet Encyclopedia, The Ultimate Source of Information on Indian Temples". Kalyani Chalukyan Temples. webmaster@Templenet.com. Retrieved 2007-11-10.

[tantric-1] K. Kannikeswaran. "Templenet Encyclopedia, The Ultimate Source of Information on Indian Temples". Kalyani Chalukyan Temples. webmaster@Templenet.com. Retrieved 2007-11-10.

[1]