Wikipedia:Peer review/Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire/archive1

Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article discusses a very important period in the development of late medieval Kannada literature written in its native metres. The article is well cited and has undergone one round of copy edit. Please provide constructive feedback on how to improve its prose, format and presentation.

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will look into the semi-auto PR requests soon.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I thought I would review this since you also asked me to look at the parent article Kannada literature (shouldn't there be some linkto that in this article, see main article ?) and I work on the Peer review backlog. While it is clear that a large amount of work has been done here, it still needs work to improve it. Here are some suggestions.

• Looking at just the lead paragraphs, I see Karnataka is linked twice, which is too much (link once per section, at most, and some editors prefer links once per article!).

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the rest of the article, where everything should be well referenced. I usually try to not put a cite / ref in the lead unless it is for a direct quotation or extraordinary claim. I am really doubtful that six citations are needed for These literatures were written by, or with the patronage of the kings of the Vijaynagara dynasties, their ministers, army commanders of rank, nobility and the various subordinate rulers.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Also, since the title is Kannada literature (singlular) and everywhere else in the lead "literature" is used as the singular form, "These literatures were written by..." seems a bit out of place here. Why not just "These were written by..."?

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Conversely, The development of Veerashaiva literature was pronounced during the reign of King Deva Raya II, the most famous of the Sangama Dynasty rulers. is a superlative claim (most famous) and should be cited.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:PCR, provide context for the reader
  • For example, it may be helpful to identify / clarify that Virashaivism and Vaishnavism are Hindu sects in Kannada literature during this period mainly consists of writings from the socio-religious developments of Virashaivism and Vaishnavism,... (apologies if "sect" is the wrong word choice - denominations? branches?).

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • A sentence or two at the start of the Vaishnava literature section that this focuses on Vishnu would help make the whole section clearer.

Done Also added what Veerashaiva and Jain writers wrote about. Explained what topics are included in Secular writings.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• • A nice example of providing more information is the description of the four native metres in the Lead, but where is this in the body of the article? Everything in the lead should also be in the article - here perhaps in the first Court literature section to explain what comes after.
• In the Vaishnava literature section, an explanation for the name "Gadugina" is given, but not "Bharata", which seems to be the only word which is in all three names given. Presumably this is because it is part of the Mahabharata, but this should be made clearer.

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Two writings of Bhima Kavi, which are considered extinct are the ... I think instead of "are considered extinct" I would say "have been lost".

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Watch parallel constructions - for example Under the patronage of King Deva Raya II were the well known poet Chamarasa, a champion of the Veerashaiva faith, Lakkanna Dandesa (the king's prime minister and provincial governor, 1450) and Jakkanarya (a minister in the court). uses commas for the first poet, but parenthese for the other two, which is confusing. Also a date is given for only one poet, and it is not clear to me what the date means - is it his death date, when he was prime minister or governor, what?

Done avoided parallel constructions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This work marks a transition of Kannada literature from old to modern and heralds a new age combining poetic perfection with religious inspiration.[18] Poetic perfection seems very POV - perhaps OK as a cited quotation (According to so and so...)

Done removed POV.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Try to be consistent throughout the article - for example is Mahabharata italicized or not? Or is God capitalized or not?

Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• References should be in order: [1][2][3] not [2}[1][3]

Done for now. As I go along I will ensure this happens.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Having read the article, I must confess that I am still somewhat confused about the topic. The article needs to flow better and tell the multiple stories of this literature. There are places where it does this fairly well (I like the Veerashaiva section in Bhakti literature as it put the Vachana poetry into context), and others where it is too choppy and does not flow and just seems to be a listing of "Famous poet A wrote famous works X, Y and Z. Famous poet B wrote Q, R, S." and so on. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply This will take a while and I am already in the process of improving the flow.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will take a careful look at them tonight and start making corrections as necessary.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Second look - as requested I have read the article again and find it much improved - well done. Here are a few mostly nit-picky points.

• I would put the reference at the end of the sentence here...the most well known[8] of the Sangama Dynasty rulers.

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Could the word "other" just be cut here: Interaction during this period between Kannada and Telugu literatures left lasting influences on each other.[11]?

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Should it be devotees of [the] Hindu God Shiva? Also I would use the same formula for Vishnu later, whatever you choose (so devotees of [the Hindu] God Vishnu instead of just devotees of God Vishnu

DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Be consistent on capitalization - is it "God" (see above) or "god" as in with singability being its hallmark and devotion to god, the goal.[14]?

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• perhaps less than quality writings were also produced by many whose works had a sectarian and propagandist bend.[18] should be something like lesser quality writings were also produced by many whose works had a sectarian and propagandist bent.[18]?

Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Done. will look for more inconsistancies.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I also noticed some missing commas but I was reading for comprehension more that copyedits.

DK Reply User Risker has agreed to copy edit that article as a whole. That will resolve grammar issues.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not reread the whole article as it is late and I am off to bed soon, but it looks and reads very much better. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take a close look at your response tonight. Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)