Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article covers an important era in the development of Kannada literature. I've listed this article for peer review because I believe a PR will help improve the content, grammar, presentation and style. The article is already well referenced.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

  • I like the new lead map - do you want to explain what the dot represents (Kalyani?)?
  • I think it needs a copyedit to polish the prose - a few examples just from the lead:
    • Yes, I will have the article go through multiple cpedits before it goes for FAC.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs at least a comma I think, and the however seems odd to me The beginnings of the Vachana poetic tradition in the Kannada speaking region[,] however traces back to the early 11th century.[9]
  • Needs commas at least But his efforts were in vain[,] as other prominent Chalukya vassals, the Hoysalas, the Kakatiyas and the Seunas destroyed the remnants of the Chalukya power[,] forcing them to fade into history.[10]
  • In addition to hundreds of male poets, over thirty women poets have been recorded, some of who[m] wrote along with their husbands.[15][16]
  • I would link Sanskrit either at Sanskritic in the lead or the first mention at ... a virtual displacement of Sanskrit as the language of courtly discourse.
  • should it be erotica in topics ranging from the sciences and astrology to erotics?
  • true fiction?? The Lilavati Prabhandam, by Nemichandra (1170), a true fiction written on the topic of love, ...?
  • the date is so uncertain it could be 103 years apart?? Nagavarma II wrote his Kannada grammar, the Karnataka bhashabhushana ("Ornament of Karnataka language", 1042 or 1145).
    • More than the dating, it is the author and the patron king that is uncertian. Nagavarma I wrote in 990 and there is no uncertianity about him. Before the discovery of Varadhamanapurana (dated 1042) written by a writer called Nagavarma, the only other Nagavarma (who used to go by the suffix "II") was of 1145 and it was assumed that all three writings (on grammar, poetics, lexicon) were written by him. But with the discovery of Varadhamanapuranam (1042) written by an author with the same name (Nagavarma) and patronised by a king with the same name/honorific, things have changed. Kannada scholar Pai has claimed that there are three Nagavarma's. Nagavarma I (990), Nagavarma II (1042, patronised by King Jayasimha II who had the honorific Jagadekamalla-lord of the world) and Nagavarma III (1145, who was patronised by a King whose name itself was Jagadekamalla II).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My goodness, that is complicated. Would it be worth a footnote explaining all that? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems overall pretty good to me, although I am not an expert on the topic by any means. Does a good job of explaining terms and providing context, refs look good, nice images.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. I does help. I will surely PR an article on that backlog.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to help, thanks for your review, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to edit what I dont know much about but I will say this. I find the article too daunting the way it is now. The lead is too long and you need to summarize the historical context better. This is supposed to be about literature not the history of the Empire. Also, try to divide the articles into more sections so readers can scan the table of contents and get a sense of what they will read beforehand. If possible, rework the map to focus better on the region of India we are talking about.

As a favor, you can look at two articles I have put up for peer review Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral and 1985 Mexico City earthquake.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will make the necessary changes. The minimlal historical info was given because in previous PR's, reviewers wanted some context. Same with the map. I have a map that only shows Chalukya territory, but a reviewer wanted the neighbouring kingdoms as well, because Kannada literature flourished over the entire Western Deccan.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Moni3

  • I recently read another South Asian article, Sri Lankan Tamil people and may have many of the same comments because a lot of the terminology will be difficult for native speakers of English with little familiarity with the foreign words to pick up, remember, and make meaningful throughout the article. I also have to say that I'm pretty ADD when I review. I read a bit, get interrupted, come back, go off again. It's rare that I can sit through an entire article without being called away. I will add to this as I can.
  • I suggest you start the lead by stating very simply the following: (remember to introduce it to your readers gently, then gradually fill them with more and more detail)
  • Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire is a category of poetry, other type of literature, and another type of literature from the western region of India spanning from (this year) to (this year). It is characterized by factor 1, factor 2, and factor 3. Kannada literature has become significant to Indian culture because ... and of course make that accurate from the sources.
  • Paragraph 2 and 3: a bit of history of the Western Chalukya Empire. Then the writers who emerged, their works, and then the importance of these works.
  • Don't ever take for granted your readers know any of the Indian words in the article. For instance, I had to hover over Karnataka to see that it was an Indian state. Explain who the Hoysalas, the Kakatiyas and the Seunas were, even if you include "nearby empires of" in front of those names. What is Veerashaiva? Clarify just to say "religious sect" in front of the word. I apologize for the many readers who have to be reminded that India was one of the cradles of civilization. I also apologize that you have to keep reminding them that arts and literature have been a huge part of Indian life for centuries. However, per WP:Jargon, the reader should not have to hover over a linked term to understand the context of a sentence.
  • It's a good idea to wallop your reader with an indication of how important your topic is at the end of a lead by providing a quote from an authority. It gives them a good reason to continue reading, as though they're thinking, "Someone of importance said the topic is significant, so I should continue to read this." Can you get a quote about the importance of this kind of poetry from one of your literary analysts. Something that sounds like "In the history of all of India, the writings that came from the Chalukya Empire poets were the most perfectly awesome in the world". I hope you know what I mean... A very strong statement that will hook your readers to continue.
  • I will continue this review in parts. More to come in a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Got it. I will address your issues one by one over the next few days.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything Moni said here except starting the article with "Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire is a category", which is just a little WP-jargony for my taste. We discussed this at your last FAC, Dinesh, and all the reviewers seemed to be okay with the same style for the first sentence that you've adopted here. Also, WP:JARGON says explicitly (now) that we have to be careful not to load the article down with so many definitions and explanations that it's not readable by anyone. However, I think Moni's instinct is right on this one: we can add the definitions and explanations a little drop at a time, so that they don't overload the prose in any one section. I'm co-nomming this one and I'm supposed to be fixing style issues, so I guess this is my evening's work :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • Change this to "Background".
  • Separate this section into subsections: Background, Kannada Language, Styles of literature. (Maybe one more)
    • Will do, though a subsection called "Kannada language" may be a stretch because description of the language is only one click away.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it would be accurate to start this section by stating a political overhaul was partially responsible for promoting the Kannada language? I'm a big fan of topic sentences not only for paragraphs but sections as well. You can trick your reader into feeling smarter that way. I would recommend this for any article that is going to be very technical or address something most readers will be unfamiliar with. If you kind of set up the material that is about to be covered, cover it, then say how important it was, people get all kinds of warm and fuzzy because they get it. So the first paragraph in Background would read something like "The Kannada language was widely proliferated in part by a political overhaul in the Indian region of Karnataka. The facts on this overhaul are described here. How this political change affected language was really important for this reason."
    • Actually, the political overhaul was not responsible for proliferation of Kannada literature, because Kannada was prolific already, from a literary/political standpoint, even in the previous Rashtrakuta empire, which I have already mentioned. In fact, Kannada, as a language of political discourse, became prolific going further back, from the Badami Chalukya rule of 6th century. However, I will try to explain Kannada's ascendancy during the period from the point of view of the decline of Sanskrit/Prakrit language, which had enjoyed royal support for many centuries, from before Christ, in the Indian context.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you're the captain of this ship, obviously. I don't know the material like you do, but the point remains about topic sentences for sections. Whatever you're trying to cover in this section, introduce it, include details, then say why it was important. --Moni3 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not clear why the first paragraph is necessary. I'm sure it is, but it needs to be stated outright, preferably in the first sentence. At first I assumed the political overhaul led to the rise of the Kannada language, but I was incorrect. Did it lead to the rise Jainism? I don't know, and it's not a good idea to have your readers guessing. If they can't make the connections, they'll lose interest. My suggestion was to begin the section with an introductory sentence: "A political overhaul in western India caused ... " --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean the first paragraph in the "lead" or the first para in "political developments"? If it is the former, it is meant to introduce the reader to a brief overall history of the Chalukyas. In the latter, I am trying to brief up the reader about How the Chalukyas came to power. If you feel the latter is not necessary, I can start that section with just A century earlier to these political developments, the age of great Sanskrit and Prakrit epics.... Neither the political overhaul made Kannada more popular, nor did it increase the popularity of Jainsim. In fact, the earlier empire, the Rashtrakutas, were a lot more favorable to Jainism, though the Chalukyas were highly tolerant too. The relationship of Jainsim and Kannada is however important and I have explained how the Jains used Kannada language to spread their teachings.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done The importance of Kannada during this period was because the popularity of Jainsim, the Jains used Kannada to spread their philosophy.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what you're missing here is a really basic and brief introduction to Kannada language. What kind of characters does it have? How is it expressed so differently? Why did it catch on?
    • Is a brief description of the language or its characters really necessary in a summary style article? I can find something for "why it caught on so well during this period, though".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you address why it caught on so well, perhaps a few facts about how it is unique to other languages. --Moni3 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done I have explained why Kannada literature (Vachana poetry in this case) caught on so well. It became popular because the promoters of the Veerashaiva movement encouraged poems in local/native Kannada in the spoken form, using native metres already popular in folk literature (as opposed to court literature) and gave freedom to lower caste people and artisans to write poems.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you put those subdivisions of the Kannada language (second paragraph) into a table so I can see that visually?
  • Subdivisions: Literary writings in Kannada from this period can be broadly subdivided as follows: dominance in the 11th century by Jain scholars of the court whose writings were in the classical champu metre,[25] first time writings on secular subjects by Jain authors on topics ranging from the sciences and astrology to erotica,[26] emergence of the earliest Vachana poets who wrote in native metres (tripadi and hadugabba),[27] the rise of the Veerashaiva movement and the proliferation of their devotional literature (called Vachana Sahitya) in the mid-12th century,[28][29] the consolidation of grammar,[30] and the waning of popularity of the Jain literature starting from the late 12th century. Table structure similar to here, maybe? --Moni3 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done The table conveys the message so well. Why did I not think of this earlier:)? You will find overlaps in dates, but that is normal in any cultural-literary development.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be sure to clarify the following terms, as specified above - by placing a few adjectives in front of them: Manyakheta, Banavasi, Hangal, S.N. Sen (where's he from?), champu, Vachana, tripadi and hadugabba, Veerashaiva, Kavirajamarga, Adikavi Pampa, Pandava. This is from the first 3 paragraphs alone. Do that throughout the section to every Indian term.
  • Remember that your readers are coming not only from a place of unfamiliarity with India, but also types and forms of poetry. I think this: while subjugating native metrical forms to a subordinate state is probably referencing poetry, but I can't tell.
  • revolutionary notions about the social and cultural order. Ok, what were the revolutionary notions? Why were they so revolutionary? What was the social and cultural order like before these notions?
    • I will try to clarify this. Revolutionary because literature upto that point was mostly the forte of the educated classes and the upper caste people.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Revolutionary because the poets used the pure form of Kannada, encouraged lower caste writers and rejected the eulogy of kings and nobility.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I read further, I'm afraid I'm lost because I don't know the context of the terms I've mentioned. Your article is quite technical - a bit like math. Make sure your readers have comprehended the most basic concepts before introducing them to the next. It's obvious that you're writing at a very high level of competency both in English and in reference to your topic. However, if your article ever appears on the main page, remember that 12-year-olds, 92-year-olds and everyone in between will read it. Your encyclopedic introduction to this topic should draw the reader in, and show them a beautiful world of writing they never knew existed. If the reader feels like he can't understand it, it's just not going to fly.
    • I think you are right and I will do my best here, without compromising the "summary style".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you make some of the changes I've recommended, I think reading the article will be easier and more pleasant. Let me know when you think you've completed these recommendations and I'll check back. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, Moni! Guys, let me know when you're done so I can get back to work. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues-Comments by Michael Devore edit

I believe problems still remain with the article's flow and word choice. As time permits, I'll post what I think is problematic for your review, if I can't come up with an timely reword/fix myself.

  • Re:"But his efforts were in vain, as other prominent Chalukya vassals, the Hoysalas, the Kakatiyas and the Seunas destroyed the remnants of the Chalukya power, forcing them to fade into history." Fading into history sounds a bit poetic, and it's unclear how people could be forced to do it. There isn't the control over the span of history to force a group to fade or not fade into it. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Removed "forced them to fade into history". "Destroying their power" says it all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re:"By writing their poems in native metres, in a language close to the spoken form of Kannada, the Vachana poets had made redundant literary elitism and the hitherto dominant nexus between temple, state and monastery from the realm of literature." It took me two or three tries to read this the way I think you want it read. The first part of the sentence is ok, up to the "Vachana poets" part, but then it gets hard to understand. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Simplified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re:"During this short and turbulent period lasting three decades (1153–1183), a new faith called Veerashaivism (or Lingayatism) developed as a revolt against the existing social order of the Hindu society." Are you committed to the "short" description? I'd like to drop it and just say "turbulent" because a lot of readers, particularly younger ones, probably don't consider three decades to a be a short period of time. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. removed "short"Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: "Perhaps the most poignant piece of elegiac verse in all of ancient Kannada literature is one that describes the heart-rending lamentation (called karuna rasa or "sentiment of pathos") of Duryodhana on seeing the slain bodies of his brother Duhshasana, his inseparable friend in joy and sorrow, Karna, and Arjuna's valorous son Abhimanyu." I don't like the "Perhaps the most poignant piece" wording for two reasons. First, "most poignant...in all of ancient Kannada literature" is a strongly-worded opinion on how people should feel. Second, the sentence itself reflects unsurety; it states that "perhaps" the piece is the most poignant. The wording works for a review of a work, but not so much for an encyclopedia. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Changed the sentence a bit to The work contains some of the earliest examples of elegy in the Kannada language, noted among which is one piece that describes the heart-rending lamentation (called karuna rasa or "sentiment of pathos")...Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two items for now. Re:"His deftly written poems, all of which end with the word "Kudalasangama" (lit, "God of the confluence of two rivers", the poets version of the god Shiva), 1300 of which have survived, have been described by Shiva Prakash H.S., a scholar on medieval Kannada literature, as lyrical, satirical, deeply contemplative and self-critical."
This is a complex and busy sentence, with multiple parenthetical phrases, including a long literally parenthetical remark. By the time I read to the quote at the end, I have almost forgotten the subject from all the digressive remarks. Can you trim or rework it to more than one sentence?
  Done. split into multiple sentences.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing, the paragraph on Basavanna ends with: "Though Basavanna himself was a minister under the patronage of the king, his poems betray his contempt towards kingship. Above all, his poems convey his deep devotion to the god Shiva. In one satirical poem, Basavanna decries the hypocrisy of a snake charmer and his wife, who on their way to find a bride for their son cancel the journey when they come across a bad omen–another snake charmer and his wife."
The last sentence appears to be tacked on. It does not appear related to or flow from the previous sentence. The preceding "Above all..." sentence reads as either a concluding summation of Basavanna's poetry or perhaps as an introduction to another aspect of the poetry. Yet the snake-charmer story that follows has nothing (that I can see) to do with Basavanna's deep devotion to Shiva. I am not saying that the snake-charmer story doesn't fit into the article, but I am saying it does not fit where it is unless you tie it more closely to Shiva or Basavanna's devotion. Otherwise the paragraph becomes a choppy collection of details. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Simply switched the occurance of the first and second part of the sentence. Please see how it reads now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Sarvajna (lit. "The all knowing")–a mendicant poet-moralist a and social reformer left a indelible imprint on Kannada literature with his didactic poems, numbering about two thousand in all." There's an extra a in "a and" that needs removed or repositioned, but that's not the main issue. I'm wondering about the en dash. If you are using an en dash as the interrupting punctuation rather than an em dash, the en dash should be spaced on either side, throughout the article, per MOS:DASH. Also, here I can't figure out the interruption, since there is only one dash and the sentence doesn't conclude on the interruption. Did you want a second dash to go after "social reformer"? -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheticals, asides, and digressions

A problem I see with the article is that it has a large number of digressive and parenthetical clauses, affecting the article's readability. I don't think the clauses are always desirable and I think a sizeable portion of them should be either removed, trimmed, or reworked into multiple sentences. Of course, you will not want to keep all sentences short and devoid of any explanatory clauses, but I think the article goes to far in the other direction.

My first example is in (the fairly short): "It constituted the bulk of the Chalukya court's textual production and pertained mostly to writings relating to the socio-religious development of the Jain faith (an ancient religion of India). Here Jain is wikilinked and faith follows as a further explanatory word. I don't think that "(an ancient religion of India)" substantially adds to the article's content, but mostly bogs down the flow.

  DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Another example, one where I think the explanations run too long, is in the sentence: "For a few centuries after Kavirajamarga ("Royal path for poets", a writing on poetics and rhetoric, c. 850), the earliest available Kannada literary work, Jain writings had adhered to Sanskritic models (called marga or mainstream) that had been recognised by the state as the path for future Kannada writers, while subjugating native poetic forms (called desi or popular local, compositions such as Chattana and Bedande) to a subordinate state." That's quite a chunk of information to process as one sentence.[reply]

  DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Both overexplaining and overly complex structures are in: "At about this time, adding to pressure from the popularity of the Vachana canon in northern Kannada speaking region, to which the Jain authors of traditional champu style had no immediate response, the noted Hoysala King Vishnuvardhana (1108–1152) of the southern Kannada speaking region had converted from Jainism to Vaishnavism (a Hindu sect devoted to the god Vishnu)." Besides reading as overstuffed, I'm not convinced that "a Hindu sect devoted to the god Vishnu)" is needed. At some point, you have to let Wikipedia allow readers to click through to articles with more information at the readers' own volition. This is covered by the wikilinked Vaishnavism. If you want to keep a bit of explanatory context, instead of the full parenthetical clause, how about saying "...had converted from Jainism to the Hindu sect Vaishnavism." and remove the following parentheses?[reply]

  DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I'll try to come up with more later on. Anyway, these are the types of FAC-prep issues where a top-flight copyeditor can really help by smoothing things out. It is quite unfortunate that those level of editors are so rare and hard to schedule. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with your analysis. I put all those bracketed explanations to satisfy Moni3 who felt that the article should be written for someone completely unaware of Indic culture. I will trim those you pointed out and more.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and removed many unnecessary bracketed contents and simplified one of the sentences you pointed out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxman's comments: (I'll watch this, so continue asking here if you want clarification or more ideas)

  • There doesn't seem to be any recognition in the article that at this time period the language refers to Old Kannada. It's not that that needs a lot of space dedicated to explaining that, but the article should take that into account throughout. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Introduced into lead itself. I should not assume everyone is aware of this classification. Just using the term "Old-Kannada" ones should be enough, in the lead, to remind the reader what epoch of Kannada literature is being written about, throughout the article. I see that practice in many bookd also. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been thinking about this issue of classification of Kannada. There are multiple ways that scholars classify it. Western authors favor the Old-Kannada (9th-12th c), Middle Kannada (12th -18th c) amd modern Kannada (19th-20th c). Indian scholars use other refinements in addition to the above. The major religion that played a role is one. So 9th-12th is Jaina, 13th-15th is Shaiva and 16th onwards is Vaishnava literature. Based on the style of writings, they also classify it as HaleGannada (old-Kannada, 5th c inscriptions - 12th c) NaduGannada (middle Kannada, 13th-15th c) and HosaGannada (modern Kannada, 16th- to date). Some even classify it based on great icons who set trends. Hence Pampa's age (9th-11th c), Harihara's age (12th - 14th c), Kumaravyasa's age (15th onwards). It the larger scheme of things, it really does not matter.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, there is not just what western scholars think of course, so whatever you think is the most NPOV way to present the info will be good. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "A century earlier to these political developments, the age of great Sanskrit and Prakrit epics and classics had come to an end, making available a vast corpus of literature that could be expressed in Kannada, the local language." needs to be adjusted. Currently it's grammar implies the coming to an end of the age of great Sanskrit and Prakrit epics and classics is what made available a vast corpus ... That of course isn't true, it's that the previous time period involved making these works available and also there is the separate assertion that the age came to an end. I don't have the sources to confirm my idea, but how about something like: "A century earlier to these political developments, the age of great Sanskrit and Prakrit epics and classics had come to an end. This productive period had made available a vast corpus of literature that could be expressed in Kannada, the local language." Or whatever wording better than productive period you can come up with. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't see any recognition of the transition from an oral literary tradition to a written one. In much of India it is considered that at first writing was used to supplement the oral memorization. Since many of the earliest existing inscriptions are near the beginning of the time period of this article, I would assume that the oral tradition had quite an influence on Kannada literature in this period as well, but again I don't have the sources nor the background to know for sure. Certainly some discussion of the oral tradition would be warranted. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The oral tradition in Kannada, preceeds the earliest available written texts by several centuries. The Kannada language had already seen one golden age of literature in the 9th-10th century Rashtrakuta court, with works on epics, prose and rhetoric already written and available to us today (Santipurana of 950, Pampa Bharata of 941, both epics, Vaadharadhane of 9th century, a prose, and Kavirajamarga of 850 CE on poetics, part grammar and rhetoric). Prior to the 850 CE period (date of Kavirajamarga) there is no shortage of poetic inscriptions (Tamatekallu of 5th c, Kappe Arabhatta of 700 CE, Humcha and Soraba inscriptions of 800 CE indicating that a well developed written/grammatical tradition existed as early as 5th century, the date of the earliest Kannada inscription (Halmidi inscription of 450 CE). Here, in this article, we are dealing essentially with the second (known) golden age or flourish, if I may, starting from the late 10th century. So I felt no need to write about an oral tradition. Unfortunately, some western scholars think an oral tradition immedietly preceeds the earliest available works of literature in a language (850 CE in our case). Dwelling on this further, I happened to come across a good book by R. Narasimhachar called History of the Kannadas which describes the early Kannada civilization, their culture and language growth. But this book really focusses on the pre-Christian and early Christian era, further supporting what I wrote above, that the oral tradition perhaps goes back a 1000 years before Kavirajamarga. None of the 30 odd books I have on the history of Karnataka/Kannada, written by reputed scholars from across the world, even faintly mentions Kannada oral traditions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, as long as you're confident of what the sources have to say around the issue, I'm comfortable. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall it's quite good, nice work. - Taxman Talk 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, please provide more insights.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is all I have for now, but I'll see what I can do. - Taxman Talk 01:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sundar Amazing work with Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire, Dinesh. I learnt so much from that article. I have a few suggestions for improvement below.

  • While I understand that there's a need to give the historical context of the powers in throne at various points in time (given the subject), you should consider separating those into background sections separate from those that talk about the literature itself. For example the text below, though completely relevant to the article, doesn't gel with the text following it in the same para (there is an abrupt change in flow). Nor does it fit the section title.
  • The text in the lead should be sharpened to focus more on the literature and grouping the story about the empires to one para.
  • The article has a lot of content. In the interest of summary style, the sections need to be condensed with the original text moved to separate main articles.
    • I think about 5% condensation will happen when I combine citations. We can cut down a bit while cpediting. You are right, the article is pushing the limits a bit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to give context in parentheses to the extent of explaining that Karna was a half-brother of Arjuna? It'll definitely help the uninitiated, but they can always look the linked articles, right? Similarly, in one instance, you explain who Shaivites are, and later you explain who Shaiva Brahmins are. This adds to the already lengthy article.
    • I agree. But Moni3 wanted clarity in "who was who" to ensure that a reader, not acquainted with Indian culture, would not get lost while reading about characters from epics. But I will revisit this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't it merit a mention that the Veerashaiva movement and the emphasis on using native metre and vocabulary has a similarity with the movement of Azhwars and Nayanmars?
    • yes. I will find the right citation for this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done I have added a citation that the monotheistic belief in Shiva may have been an influence from the Nayanmars. I will try to search for similarities betwen Vachanas though and earlier Tamil poems. As such, I have already mentioned that atleast one scholar claims that the Vachana idealogy may have originated from the Upanishads and Agamas.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to your discretion on this. If and when you do the summarisation, please drop me a note. I'll probably do some copyediting. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I recommend reverting the recent edit which changed the references to use a scroll area. This behavior is prohibited by the Manual of Style (see MOS:SCROLL). I suspect that if an editor who was a stickler for MoS style in featured articles saw it, the existing FA Chennai would be changed as well (it probably only has scrollable references because it is an older featured article that predates the MoS requirement.) -- Michael Devore (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Elcobbola:
    • Image:Kamadeva18thcenturyengraving.jpg - needs a verifiable source (i.e. how can we confirm it is indeed from the 18th century?)
    • Image:Channabasavanna.JPG - appears to be a derivative work; the artist of the scanned image would need to grant permission to release this image to the PD for the copyright tag to be correct (I commented this out to resolve sandwiching issues - see MOS:IMAGES - in its section).
    • Stacking issues in the Background section need to be resolved; the "Inscribed handwriting" images are just fine from a copyright standpoint, but there simply isn't room for them with the "Literary developments" chart. If this is going for FA, I would argue this is a failure of "professional standards of ... presentation". Can these images be moved to another section or, alternatively, can we do without them (i.e. really on a {{Commonscat}}? Эlcobbola talk 14:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the handwriting images because the Poet whose handwriting is presented in the image is described extensively in this article. It can moved elsewhere though.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, I do think they're relevant and I have no problem with them as images. This is merely a space thing; too much is being crammed into that section. Эlcobbola talk 14:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Moved image to prevent sandwitching.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Kannada_literature_in_the_Western_Chalukya_Empire/archive1&oldid=1138562560"