Talk:Munneswaram temple

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments in accordance with GA criteria

I am not assessing for GA as I am active member of Hinduism wikiproject, though I can suggest things for improvement as requested.

• Siva spelling: the spelling Shiva/Shiv is usually used in Sanskrit and Indian English. Śiva is IAST. Ganesha, Kali used in the article are not in IAST, but in Indian English. The article uses Sanskrit words as Ganesha, Skanda, Navaratri
• Pages: when multiple in no. use pp. 12-14, when single page is quoted use p.12
  •  Done
• Timeline of Munneswaram temple needs references.
  •  Done
• The article heavily relies on one source. The theories of Bastion (dates of construction, conversion of Muneeswaran temple to Shiva temple) may not be universal. Additional references needed for history. The views of other scholars need to be included for a fair view.
• Like many regional Hindu deities, Munisvaran - the local deity seems to have merged with Shiva. Muneeswaran is currently viewed as an aspect of Shiva. NOte it somewhere.
• "The temple dedicated to Ganesha is the newest amongst the Hindu temples" There are 2 Ganesha temples, which one?
  •  Done

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will fix the article as well as find more sources. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Include this RS too.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. Generally this is quite a nice article - I particularly like it isn't over-decorated with an annoying stream of inline cites, eh - but the prose was rather rough in places, with several obvious grammatical slips. I've fixed most of these, although it could still use some more detailed copyediting to aid with issues of flow and clarity. I've also left a couple of hidden comments in the text where I was unclear as to what the intended meaning was and didn't like to fix it myself, as I know nothing about this interesting topic. Moreschi (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as English is not my mother tongue, it is indeed difficult to write an article that also flows naturally. I have to thank Wetman for copy editing for me. You are more than welcome to copy edit it. I will look fo those hidden comments and fix them appropriately. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to explain where ever you put a hidden comment. Let me know whether it works or not. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed two, just one more. What does "nominally under use" in the "reconstruction" section mean? Does that mean "nominally being rebuilt", or "nominally in usage", or what? Best, Moreschi (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

nominally in usage is what I meant Taprobanus (talk) 05:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

All done now, I think. Moreschi (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –SpacemanSpiff 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I think the article is in pretty good shape overall; I have a few suggestions:

1. Can the layout be changed to have the history section moved up to the top and the layout bit to just before the festivals section?

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Along with the above change, I think some sort of explanation of the etymology will be in order (by moving a rewritten form of "The presiding deity is called Sri Munnainathar ("Lord of antiquity") and the goddess is called Sri Vativampika Devi ("goddess of beautiful form")" to the history section.)

 Done

1. A bit of a read through to remove some extra articles and economize on words (e.g. "situated in the Munneswaram village, which was the center of the spiritual and religious".)

 Done

1. I also suggest rearranging the images so that they don't bleed into the next section.

Let me know what you think. cheers. –SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've made some edits to the article and have also added a few {{explain}} tags. Can you address those comments? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanations

Munneswaram pattuva was a older divison of the country no longer used also, I have no idae as to whether these villages are still extant as the whole area economy changed from that of village paddy cultivation to coconut planatation leaving only few villages intact such as Maradankulama and Udappu that are associated with the Temple. Taprobanus (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Final comment: Have added a citation tag to the name bit in the history section, once that's done, we can complete the review. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have it for name not for etymology, will look into Bastin book. Thanks for all your help. Taprobanus (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Taprobanus (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass, although it could do with a couple more images, esp of the Buddhist temples

Generally good articles, could do with a couple more images. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— —SpacemanSpiff 03:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)