Talk:Harshat Mata Temple

Lead
Details such as which particular sculptures on the main shrine's walls survive are not suitable for the lead. I'm not sure if you have read Cynthia Packert Atherton's article, but these sculptures are a very small part of the sculptures in the temple complex, and scholarly sources do not give any particular importance to these specific sculptures. Same goes for details like "Act No. LXXI of 1951 dated 28 November 1951" - this is not even mentioned in any of the scholarly sources, and is unnecessary for the lead. Also, your version leaves some of the content in the lead unsourced, with inconsistent citation style. I've not removed any of the content added by you - I've simply placed it at suitable places in the article body, and summarized it in the lead. utcursch &#124; talk 20:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you've now removed quite a lot of the content I added, or perhaps tucked it away in unsuitable places. The lead is much less clear & useful as a result. You do realize only a small minority of readers look beyond the lead and the pictures? There is a least one sentence that makes no sense in the body. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What content are you referring to, when you say that I've "removed quite a lot of the content" or "tucked it away in unsuitable places"?
 * You added the following content:
 * a largely ruined -- still present in the lead
 * (or "Abaneri") -- still present in the lead
 * Only parts of the main shrine, and the bottom of an open mandapa with columns survive now, and they have been ruined and modified over several centuries, with roof-domes added. - still present in the lead, changed to Only parts of the main shrine now survive and they have been ruined and modified over several centuries, with the tall shikhara tower replaced by a roof-dome.
 * Much of the platform survives, and carved stones from the original structure lie around it, but most of the sculptures have been removed to the museums in Amber, Rajasthan and the Central Museum, Jaipur. - still present in the lead, changed to Much of the platform survives, with fragments of carved stones from the original structure, but most of the sculptures have been removed to the museums in Amber and Jaipur.
 * You moved the following content from the article body to lead:
 * The original main shrine was much taller with a superstructure (shikhara) tower. However, the superstructure has been destroyed, and later rebuilt with a simple dome. - included above
 * The sculptures on the temple walls have largely been lost: the surviving sculptures include those of Vishnu, his vahana - the Garuda, Balarama, apsaras (celestial woman), a vyala (leogryph), Agni, a four-armed Shiva-like seated male, a male seated on a makara (mythical sea creature), a kneeling male having his foot massaged by four female attendants, dancers, and a musician, among others. -- I had added this content to the article body, and it absolutely doesn't belong in the lead, especially when removed from the article body. These sculptures are present in a specific part of the temple, and the source discusses several other sculptures - there is no reason why these particular sculptures should be mentioned in the lead. If you've read the source article, and disagree with me, please explain why.
 * The temple remains in religious use; it was inscribed by the Archaeological Survey of India under Act No. LXXI of 1951 dated 28 November 1951. - the information is still present in the lead, minus "Act No. LXXI of 1951 dated 28 November 1951". Why is this bit important for the lead, especially when no scholarly sources even mention it?
 * You made the following changes in the article body:
 * Changed section heading Sectarian affiliation to Dedication -- I've retained this change.
 * utcursch &#124; talk 14:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)