Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chola dynasty

Chola dynasty
I have been working on this article for a few months. It has had a round of peer review and has greatly benefited from that. A number of authors have made significant contributions to it. Chola dynasty was one of the most important ruling dynasty of Tamil Nadu and they have left behind a lasting legacy. I feel this article is a tribute to them and Tamil culture in general. As I have contributed quite a bit to this article, I will be available to answer any queries or to make any suggested changes. - Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 23:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Right off the bat. Excellent article. RyanG e rbil10 02:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. very well-researched article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Definitely an FA material. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above Anonymous  _anonymous_  Have a Nice Day  18:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Very informative and concise. Well referenced. I wish that you would make the images bit larger in the article. --Blacksun 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The images are thumbed according to the user's preset resolution. You can have it increased by setting the resolution in your special:preferences under the "Files" tab. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object Image problems:
 * Image:Uttama coin.png is for "non-profit purposes" and is a candidate for speedy deletion.
 * Image:Thanjavur temple.jpg has no licensing information. It was incorrectly tagged as a two-dimensional work of art older than 100 years.
 * Image:Cholabronze.jpg has no licensing information. It was originally tagged as released into the public domain by the author, but the source specifies otherwise.
 * Jkelly 23:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jkelly. I was not aware of the copyright issues with the images. To resolve the problems, I have


 * removed the Uttama coin.png from the article and have written to the image owner for specific permission to use
 * removed the Cholabronze.jpg image from the article
 * uploaded an new version of the Thanjavur temple.jpg with appropriate rights.
 * thanks Parthi (Venu62) 00:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just remember when asking for a new license for the coins image to clarify that commercial and derivative use is necessary for use on Wikipedia. Thanks for looking after the image problems, and good luck with the article.  Jkelly 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support because it's very good, but does anyone have an idea on how to clarify in the beginning of the intro about how long the dynasty ruled for? I think that's critical to the subject, but it's also not easy given the state of the scholarship. See the peer review for more background and my rough attempt at some wording if you like. - Taxman Talk 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral -- Some issues with the lead. 1. Rajendra Chola extended...new capital called Gangaikonda Cholapuram is a little too detailed for the lead. 2. Avoid using footnotes in the lead, as it is a summary of content to follow. 3. What does: Preceding state	Unknown, ?Pandya in the infobox mean? 4. Add a space between Greater(Later). 5. A few red links can be stubbed. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  05:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The dynasty originated in the fertile valley of the Kaveri River, Urayur (near Thiruchirapalli), their oldest capital. is choppy. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I have made it less choppy now. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 09:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support -- though I would prefer the colour of this this changed from red to blue. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  11:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The link to Adiperukku has been removed from the article - Parthi (Venu62) 21:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment—Yes, it is a good article, but I've just copy-edited the History section, and it certainly needed it. Tony 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tony. I have now made the chanegs suggested by Nichalp by moving the footnotes frm the Lead para to the body. - Parthi (Venu62) 07:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - Very good article. Well researched. I can see that a lot of hard work has gone into this article. Good job - Aksi_great (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object - Ignores completely the Great Schism of Malayalam and Tamil cultural spheres of influence and the associated race riots and wars between Cheras and Cholas. Anwar saadat 17:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the self-made maps of Chola dominions exaggerate their boundaries including Chera territories. Sources credited are unverifiable and thus remains controversial. Anwar 23:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Maldives were under Chera dominion, never under any of the Cholas. I am beginning to suspect strong POV pushing and hagiographic bent Anwar 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I just noticed the mix-up in dates of reign of Cholas - overlapping and unexplained. Anwar 04:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anwar, this is a valid concern. But, since the article is already featured, this discussion has to be continued at Talk:Chola dynasty. Please raise the latest point there. Other facts have been cited in my opinion. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 04:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to Anwar: All the reference cited in the articles are easily available at your local library or for purchase on any good online bookstore. There is epigraphical evidence for Rajaraja's conquest of Maldives. All the maps in the articles are based on the authoritative book by KAN Sastri The Colas. You are welcome to verify it. How do you mean they are 'unverifiable?' What are your references for the Maldives being under Chera occupation? What are your references for the boundaries of Chola territories? - Parthi (Venu62) 00:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Colas by KAN Sastri -
 * A History of South India by KAN Sastri -
 * As WP is an open encyclopaedia anyone can edit, you are most welcome to contribute. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 22:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This objection by Anwar saadat in my opinion is frivolous. The article is about a Tamil ruling dynasty and covers both political and cultural developments during their time. I couldn't find any mention of any race riots in any of the references cited in the article. - Parthi (Venu62) 06:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add well-structure NPOV sections to the article.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - it's a good informative article and that's what Wikipedia is about.  Noble eagle  (Talk)  01:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A brilliant article on an important subject about which little is known to wider sections of people. It would still help to ink Adiperukku and fix minor issues mentioned by the reviewers. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to Adiperukku as I didn't have the time to create the stub. I was going to create the article and then create the link as I was under the impression that any red link on a FAC is frowned upon. I have also addressed all the issues mentioned by the reviewers, except the objection by Anwar saadat. Cheers Parthi (Venu62) 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Adiperukku stub created - Parthi (Venu62) 06:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support well-structed and interesting. Rlevse 15:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support A great article with good writing and images! Felixboy 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Great article with plenty of footnotes and pictures. That it's about an area outside the western mainstream makes it a great candidate for Featured Status, since it gives people a chance to learn something new. Coemgenus 01:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support good article.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, a good article. --Bhadani 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)