Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:35, 10 January 2008

Western Chalukya architecture

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)

This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The picture arrangement looks fine to me but I know from experience this may not be the case on all screens when a page is so well illustrated? Anyone having any problems? I would still like to see a more rounded concluding section - appreciation of the style today etc. Its a very good page, and I'm ready to support. It just needs winding up - it seems to conclude mid-stream.Giano (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Misplaced Pages, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?

The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital. The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.

I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?

As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Misplaced Pages's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.

This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Misplaced Pages is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "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." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Prosing comment: how about this version of the paragraph? Hmmm. I do understand User:Fowler&fowler's frustration with the prose, even though I don't see any "errors", as such (unless we're seriously going to quarrel about en- and em-dashes). The skilled copyeditors have presumably eradicated those, as well as pleasingly widened the vocabulary.

However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:

"The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital. Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar, by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.

The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."

Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).

Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever encountered such distasteful behaviour againast another editor on a FAC before, as that exhibited to Dinesh by you. I am very surprised no one in authority has stepped in to rebuke you. Giano (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is my view . It is impossible to edit with such hostility coming from you. I'll leave it to the FA director to decide what he wants to do with the page. Good evening. Giano (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Misplaced Pages as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain let me remind everyone that FA status is basically meaningless and that the FA program is basically just an imaginary carrot to improve articles. While I agree that this is ridiculous, and that this should be otherwise and that this would be better served by Peer Review, I am perfectly willing to let this go - if this article does not obtain FA status it is not a great tragedy, if this article obtains FA status it is not a great tragedy.--Kiyarrllston 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support - The more I look at the article, the more I'm falling in love with it. Kudos to Dinesh for putting this article together. Yes, the prose can do with some improvement, but the merits of the article clearly overwhelm any concerns about the prose. It is a shame that graceless behaviour of a lone editor has seemingly shifted the focus from what a lovely article it is and how much effort has gone into it to what he'd have us believe is the end of the world ("clunky prose"). Sarvagnya 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I was asked to have a look and I support this article for promotion to featured status. Good work. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ Cousens (1926), p 23
2. Cousens (1926), p 21