Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Western Ganga Dynasty
- 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 promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.
The Western Ganga Dynasty ruled over Southern Karnataka, India, for over six centuries and played an important role in the development of the region. Although a small Kingdom, their contributions are well worth documenting and that is what this article has tried to establish. The article was in PR for a week without any comments or feedback. I am looking forward to constructive feedback that could help take this article to FA.Dineshkannambadi 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice article, but it seems it's over-informative, which is not a negative point as such.Cheers! User:Luxurious.gaurav
- Support: Great article with ample citations. But it seems that the 'History of Karnataka' template is not well placed. Please see if anything can be done here. But anyway I fully support the nomination. DSachan 11:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: The lead para states that the peak empire lasted from 350 to 550 CE. i am assuming that the territory of the empire was the largest at that time. The map shows the territory as of 800 CE. It will be great if you can the largest extent in a different shade to the same map.
DK reply Actually they were as soverign power between 350-550, not the peak.This is reflected in the lead. The map generally should be considered their core area, though the author (Adiga) says 800 CE onwards. I have a similar map from Kamath which assigns the area generally speaking, without dates. In 930 time frame they also ruled territories in the Tungabhadra valley further north but this was for a few decades untill the fall of Rashtrakutas, their overlords. Maps are ticky and I dont want to use my judgement in calculating area coverage at their peak. Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"lasted from about 350 to 550" CE? BC? - add that reference
DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"feudatory" - is there a wikilink or you need to provide an explanation to this term as the understanding of the whole sentence hinges on this term.
DK the term has no wikilink, but generally means a subordinate. I can change it to subordinate.
"fighting for the cause of the overlords" - i am assuming it is the chalukyas.On second thought, can you re-phrase the entire sentence "After the rise of the imperial ..."
DK Done, emphasized better nowDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: Need date when they started serving under the Chalukyas --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When the Chalukyas were replaced" - provide date
DK DoneDineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a few issues with this:"the Western Gangas successfully fought along side their new overlords against their traditional foes, the Chola Dynasty of Tanjavur in the battle of Takkolam resulting in the Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil Nadu." - (1)new overlords - this means that their existence after 550 CE is as a subject nation to a larger empire. can you make that clear in the sentence that chalks history from 350 to 550 CE. Thus the addition of 550 to 1000 CE would provide a complete overview (2) traditional foes - the previous sentence had the pallavas as their foe. avoid usage of the term "traditional", unless you would like to add substantial evidence in the lead section (3) "occupation of northern Tamil Nadu" - provide dates. remember that the lead section needs to stand on it's own and dates are essential in these type of history articles
DK Simplified. removed mention of Rashtrakuta occupation of northern Tamil nadu as it is perhaps unnecessary to the article lead. As such, it is mentioned in the History section. It is mentioned more in detail in the Rashtrakuta Dynasty article. Regarding the time frame from 550-1000, they were really independent from 750-850 (approx), constantly at war with the Rashtrakutas. There after they again became subordinates. So one cant really say they were a subject nation technically throughout. How does it look now?Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In the late 10th century, major political changes were taking place in the Deccan." - violates Show, don't tell policy. reword/re-phrase or remove
DK Done. removed "major political..."Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire north of the Tungabhadra river" - grammatical error. I think it should be "North of Tungabhadra river, the Rashtrakutas were replaced by the emerging Western Chalukya Empire"
DK Done. Copied your sentence.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Though territorially a small kingdom," - all the above dealt with geo-spread of the empire and subsequent sentences deal with culture and other aspects. it is best to seperate it out as a new para. combine all military prowress/empire extent into one para
DK Done. seperated.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"resulting in the construction of fine monuments" - avoid usage of terms "fine". could be considered POV. Also, let the reader make the judgement of the monument being fine or otherwise
DK done. removed "fine".Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** The lead para does not have details of how the empire came into existence in 350 CE. Please add the same.
DK The invasion of Samudragupta having caused disturbance in the south is only a theory, perhaps not proven by inscriptions. This is why even historians merely mention it without giving it too much credibility, but more as a geo-political event. Adding it to the LEAD may make people think that the Gangas had something to do with Samudragupta. This is why I prefer no to add it.Dineshkannambadi 22:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:My try: "The general belief is that the Western Ganga empire began during a time period when multiple small kingdoms arose after the weaking of the Pallava empire, a geo-political event sometimes attributed to the conquests of Samudra Gupta. Does that sound fair? --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK I have addd this to the lead. Please take a look.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is the shravanabelagola temple and idol related to the History section? Move it to a different/more appropriate section
DK Done. Moved it down and moved Kings template up.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"of southern India by Samudra Gupta, a king from North India and carved out a small kingdom for themselves. " - which year (or approx. range of years) did Samudra gupta invade? and when did the gangas carve a "small kingdom" for themselves. also, remove "small" unless you are going to quantify it
DK Samudragupta ruled from 335-380. I dont have a date for his southern invasion, but it must have been just prior to 350 as this is mentioned in more than one book. Generally, such major geo-political changes throws up smaller kingdoms who break away from their earlier overlords.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** At times, they also controlled some areas in modern Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh." - years/dates? which areas in AP and TN?
DK done. I have added the info. They consolidated Ananthpur in AP aroud 450 and Kongu region in TN in 6th century. But their hold there was not permanent.Dineshkannambadi 01:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"capital around 350 and " - add CE in this sentence as well as everywhere else in the article as well
DK This issue has had its share of conflicts. Many reviewers feel that CE need not be added everywhere, only in the lead. I have had to do-redo-do this kind of edits repeatedly and finally stuck to what I felt was majority view. same with 350 kind of linking.Dineshkannambadi 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Fair enough. CE is lead and none elsewhere will be my mantra going forward. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." - i am confused. the previous sentence states that the empire was created with kolar as the capital. this sentence contradicts that. need clarification and re-wording
DK Majority of the historians view that they became independent from 350. A few like Baji feel they still owed some alligience to Pallavas for a few decades. This is normal as these things dont happen overnight. I went with the majority view in the lead. I can remove the above sentence "Historians have debated whether Gangas had complete independence in the early decades of their rule from Kolar." since it is not critical to the article. Sound ok?Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: Yeah, please remove or re-word the sentence. as i stated, the previous sentence states that the gangas made Kolar their capital and the next sentence stated just the opposite. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK removed sentence for clarity.Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** "the Gangas had consolidated their kingdom with Talakad as their capital." - why did they choose Talakad as their capital?
DK closer to the rich pasture lands and agricultural lands of Malnad, considering they were still under pressure from Kadambas in central Karnataka and Pallavas south of Kaveri. I did not want to go into these details to keep the article concise. In an earlier FA, I was asked not to dwell into details.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: I think the details of why an empire shifted capitals is very important and pertinent to the wiki article. Please add the same here. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dk Done. Added info. A strategic move to contain the Kadambas.Dineshkannambadi 01:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"By 430 they had consolidated their eastern territories" - any info on which regions in AP/Kar/TN are covered in this "eastern territories".
DK Historians here , at this time, refer to Bangalore, Kolar, Tumkur, perhaps Anathapur (not many inscriptions from here) .Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** 'his younger brother who was favoured by King Avinita." - who is Avinita? provide wikilink for his page and if possible, some reference to his involvement in the history of the dynasty.
DK King Avinita is King Durvinita's father. Not much is written about Avinita, though I can create a stub.Dineshkannambadi 23:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK created a stub for Avinita.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** "accounts suggest that in this family feud the Pallavas " - copyedit required, remove "in this family feud" at a min and add the phrase towards the end of sentence else re-write the sentence
DK rewrote.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Follow-up comments: Manu should be wikilinked to Manu (Hinduism) and not Manu (hinduism).
DK linked correctly.Dineshkannambadi 15:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"King Sripurusha fought the Pallava King Paramamaheshvara Varman successfully" - which year? I noticed that there are 2 Paramamahshvara Varman (I and II). but their reign was 672 - 700 and 705 - 710. whereas your article implies that it is after 725. please reconcile
DK Copy edit mistake. corrected. The king was Nandivarman Pallavamalla. Earlier, in early 8th century, Parameshvaravarman was killed in a duel with Ganga -Chalukya Vikramaditya II alliance.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** "A contest with the Pandyas of Madurai over control of Kongu region brought mixed results" - what is "mixed results", did they lose teritory? did that make any political impact? Not having that info seems to provide only one sided view of the events.
DK I read it again. The author says that the Pandyas incriptions claim the Ganga control over Kongu was "threatened" by Pandya invasion in which the Pandya seem to have won the battle, but it is not clear if they held Kongu because there was a marriage between Ganga princess and Pandya prince.(K.A.N. Sastri in Adiga). The 771 Salem plates of Sripurusha and the Koramangala grant however indicate the Kongu region remained in Ganga control.(Ramesh in Adiga)Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: Please add this summary in the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Added summary with citations.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In 753, the Badami Chalukyas were replaced by Rashtrakutas as the dominant force in the Deccan to which the Gangas offered stiff resistance for about a century" - this does not get reflected in the lead section. request a phrase addition in the lead section.
DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married).[33]" - year and was any king missed in-between?
DK Yes. Not much is mentioned about Rachamalla II, Ereganga Neetimarga II and Narasimha who ruled in (870-938). Perhaps an uneventuful time as the Rashtrakuta overlords were the supreme power in Deccan at this time..Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: Fair enough. Follow-up comment: "After an uneventful period, Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne in 938 " - remove "was the next famous king who" - POV and not required. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha I gave his daughter Chandrabbalabbe in marriage to Ganga prince Butuga I"; later "Butuga II was the next famous king who ascended the throne with the help of Rashtrakuta Amoghavarsha III (whose daughter he married" - are these 2 different events or the same event with mistake in the roman numerals. If there is no mistake, what happened to Butuga I, why did he not become the king after his father's death?
DK Butuga I never became the king. There is no mistake with Roman numerals.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A later " - year?month?decade?
DK dated to 963
"a minister in the Western Ganga court is a well known personality to students of modern Karnataka's history " - def. POV
DK Removed phrase.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He served King Marasimha II and his successors ably and helped them during times of distress." - violates Show, don't tell policy. Please elaborate on what distress did he solve for the king?
DK Done. Hepled supress a civi war.
** "Large areas of south Karnataka came under Chola control for about a century until the region was annexed by Hoysala Vishnuvardhana who defeated the Cholas in a decisive battle at Talakad.[44]" - strong object to this sentence. please explain the need for the sentence.
DK Removed. put it for continuity, but i guess its not necessary.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Yes. it is not necessary. It gives an impression that you are pursuing an agenda of highlighting the superiority of kannada people's rule over modern karnataka region. sticking to facts provides little/no ammo for vandals. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** The Western Ganga administration was influenced by some principles stated in the ancient text Arthashastra." - how did they receive arthashastra? which principles (provide number evidence) did they follow?
DK I have added this info. It was the role played by village elders. The same citation in following line holds good.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: Not convinced. remove the term "some" and i think that should be fine. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
** Niyogis - provide wikilink
Dk Done. will add stub.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Isn't the niyogis mentioned here, the same as Niyogi. Please let me know. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Done. The article on Niyogi has been written with todays POV that they are predominently Telugu. 1500 years back things may have been different given the fact people have moved around a lot. So I hesitate to link to that, to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict. In fact I would request not to link. (I have linked anyway)Dineshkannambadi 15:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pergade, nadabova, nalagamiga, prabhu and gavunda - what do these titles mean?Oh, i get it - either move the sentence to the next para or combine the 2 paras.
DK DoneDineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image of Roof sculpture, Panchakuta basadi at Kambadahalli is repeated twice.
DK Actually they are two seperate sculptures, resembling each other. I have commented out one.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Oh, i didn't know that. if they are different, you can add both as well as ensure that the difference is made visible to all. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to images, please make a gallery and add these images in the same. The gallery goes under the religion/architecture sections and you can have multiple galleries - i see one for shravanabelagola and another for the rest.
DK regarding this, I request a waiver. This issue came up in another FAC and reviewers felt that the reader would loose the context if a gallery were added. This is why I have not used galleries in any FA.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: I am not convinced but i shall go with you on this. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The Western Ganga rule was a period of brisk literary activity in Sanskrit and Kannada, though many of the writings are now considered extinct and are known only from references made to them." - need reference
DK Done.Dineshkannambadi 02:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply-->Please give me a day or two to answer, modify, correct or confirm all the points you have brought up.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
: I have struck off comments which have been addressed. There are a few still that needs to be done, before i want to add my support to the article. --Kalyan 06:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DK I will take a closer look today.Dineshkannambadi 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object. The article has too many opinionated sentences. I have tagged some. By virtue of a Hindu belief that killing of a brahmin (Bramhatya) was a sin, capital punishment was not applicable to them is POV. Severe crimes committed were punishable by the severing of a foot or hand - what is a severe crime? Don't you think the article should be renamed as Western Ganga Empire or Western Ganga Kingdom? A dynastic page ought to focus on the succession primarily. Anwar 18:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DK Reply-->These are opinions of Scholars for which citations have been provided. Not my opinions. Additional Citation has been provided. Infact citation already existed just a few lines ahead. I dont see why a dynastic page has to merely focus on succession. However, I have no problem if its called Western Ganga Kingdom, if there is concensus. I can study he book again and see what the author may have meant by "severe crime", though I suspect its unlikely he would have listed what was severe and what was not because that would be considered "opinionated". Dineshkannambadi 19:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that another article Political history of medieval Karnataka does not have any section about Western Ganga dynasty at all. Which version is correct? The society, language, literature, architecture and religion sections of WGD should be shifted to the PHMK without much ado as they are apparently common traits of all Kannada kingdoms then. Anwar 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- DK A pargraph on Gangas exists in the very first section bottom of the article you mentioned. The section is called "Kadambas and Gangas" in bold. Why should these sections from Western Ganga Dynasty be shifted to Political History of medieval Karnataka? PHMK is meant to be a brief commentary on all empires that ruled from Karnataka with limited focus on kingdom history, some focus on language, architecture. literature etc. I think you are getting confused. WGD on the contrary is a detailed description of the Gangas. BTW, this FAC is on "Western Ganga Dynasty", not PHMK.Dineshkannambadi 13:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Impressive presentation of the matter. Ample references and some real good pictures are adding value to the article. Would make a fine history FA. - KNM Talk 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think all issues that were raised have been addressed and article is in excellent shape now. Gnanapiti 15:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support - Well written article with a good number of references. -- Naveen (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2007 (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.