Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hoysala architecture


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:45, 3 March 2007.

Hoysala architecture
Hoysala architecture article has been through a peer review. This architectural style which was developed by the Hoysala Empire (which is already a FA) is considered an unique idiom in the annals of medieval Indian architecture. Please provide positive feedback to help get this topic to FA status.Dineshkannambadi 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have replaced "famous" with "notable" in 2 section titles. Bit difficult for me to read the article at one go. So will comment more later. Added a citation needed tag. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply-->Will provide citation.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. fixed redlink with stub pageDineshkannambadi 01:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment In " Temple deities", These sequences go right to left, in the direction of circumambulation by devotees. But in next section (Temple complex), Devotees can first complete a ritual circumambulation on the jagati by walking in a clockwise direction before entering the mantapa, following the sculptural clockwise-sequenced reliefs on the outside temple walls depicting the Hindu epics. There is something wrong in the direction here. Or am I missing something?

Reply-> I have tried to clarify this after reading the line in my book. The term clockwise (which has been used for clarity and does apear in my book, Foekema page 25) must be seen as a top view. When a devotee gets on to the jagati, the devotee starts walking towards his/her left to see the sequence of scenes (my book calls it "right to left sequence of epic scenes in the direction of circumabulation".Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of these temples have secular features with broad themes depicted in their sculptures &mdash; temples cannot have secular features, if we go by the strict sense of the word. Even in flexible sense of the word, having both Vishnu and Shiva as deities can hardly be considered as proof of secularism (Hindu and Muslim worship places together could have been considered!). However if some noted historian has used this word, please give citation.

Reply--> I have provided citation (#4) from Prof. Settar. In the 12th century, when Islam hardly had any impact on South India and Christianity had not made its presence yet, I suppose a temple with Vishnu/Shiva and Jain depictions are "relatively" considered secular, given the competition among devotees of these faith.Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The names of Shiva temples end with the suffix eshwara meaning Lord of. Does this sentence end with Of? This may be hard to follow for readers who are not acquainted with the structure of Indian languages. Another question, is it a norm that Vishnu temple does not end with eshwara?

Reply My book says Lord of. I can change it to Lord. In "Hoysaleswara" temple, the word means Lord of Hoysala (Foekema, p20). My book says while a Shiva temple can have the ending word esvara or eswara, or the name of a devotee or person who commissioned the temple, Vishnu temples only are named after the deity form of Vishnu (Krishna, Rama etc). I will add this info more accurately with citation. Provided citation.thanksDineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Krishna avatar (playing a flute as Venugopala, dancing on the head of Kaliya the snake, lifting a mountain as Govardhana) &mdash; please try to wikilink. People who do not know about these avatars would not understand. --Dwaipayan

(talk) 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Reply-->wikilinked. Will create stubs where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply-->I will address all these issues tonight.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reconfirmation-->Foekema does call the direction of circumambulation as clockwise on one page and "right to left" on another. They both imply the same thing.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 03:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a really good article. But is a bit difficult to read and understand for me. I read the whole article, and had to read some parts repeatedly and compare with other sections in order to understand. I am not specifying any particular section. However, can it be somewhat simplified? It's tough read for someone who is not at all acquainted with the subject.
 * "Temple complex" &mdash; can this be made more lucid? And include what every word means (though those words are explained later in detail). For example, jagati is followed by "platform upon which the temple sits" within brackets, but mantapa does not have any explanation, though wikilinked. Please try to give the meanings of Indian words. This section is very important in order to understand the rest of the article.

Reply--> I have added bracketed clarifying phrases and wordingDineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could not properly understand open and close mantapa. Are they always coexistent? Or is it such that one temple may have a closed mantapa while another temple an open one? Suddenly in "pillars" section outer and inner mantapa (open and closed) have numerous circular lathe turned pillars &mdash; but so far in the article outer and inner mantapas have not been explained (or I may have missed the explanation).

Reply-->I have made edits to clarify your doubts. In large temples, the open mantapa serves as outer mantapa and the inner mantapa is the closed mantapa. In Smaller temples, the inner mantapa is all the temple has. So the concept of outer/inner does not arise. I have also copyedited the pillars section to improve readability. Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Could not properly understand the relation of the shrine and Mantapa. Is vimana the roof of shrine only (The vimana is also called the cella and contains the shrine)? Or is it the roof of Mantapa (containing the shrine) also? In the former case, what's and how is the roof of mantapa? I shall try to give the article more detailed reading, and comment later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->the Vimana is the "Shrine" (inner sanctum, its outer decorated walls), the Garbhagriha would be inside of the Vimana where the Idol is placed. If there is only one shrine with a tower it is called Ekakuta vimana. If there are two shrines with two towers its called Dvikuta vimana and so on. The term Vimana has nothing to do with the mantapa. The tower on top of the shrine does not seem to have its own seperate designation. The tower on top of the entrance porch is the Gopuram.Dineshkannambadi 23:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will answer you questions in detail tonight.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 19:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional support this is a great article and I support subject to the author dealing with the addendum section and research notes the content of which should be either given a proper section header that describes the information dealt within the paragraphs, or that information should be incorporated into the text. --Mcginnly | Natter 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply-->I will see how I can better format the "addendum" section.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 00:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The "Notable temples" section looks poorly formatted in lower resolutions. Also, the issue raised by Mcginnly needs to be addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply-->I will take care of both issues.thanks.

Dineshkannambadi 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done please review.Dineshkannambadi 02:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Now the text is much easier to follow. The images are also well-incorporated in text. Just one comment. In some images, the caption may seem somewhat misleading. For example, in the section "Temple deities", one caption goes like this, "Shiva, Parvati, Nandi, Halebidu". A reader who does not know what these are may think that all are names of deities. I suggest using brackets for the name of the place. The caption would read like this, "Shiva, Parvati, Nandi; (Halebidu)", or,"Shiva, Parvati, Nandi; Halebidu", or,"Shiva, Parvati, Nandi at Halebidu". What do you think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply-->doneDineshkannambadi 23:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. All outstanding issues have been resolved. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Another gem by Dinesh. --Blacksun 11:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Excellent article! Very well written, with some real good pictures to illustrate. Would make a good history FA. - KNM Talk 18:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - A very well written article. -- Naveen  (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.