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. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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
 * Timeline of Munneswaram temple needs references.
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * 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)