Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature/archive1


 * 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

Kannada literature
Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because Kannada language and its literature are one of the oldest in India. It has a literary tradition spanning 1500 years. Kannada writers have made invaluable contributions to Indian literature, both classical and modern. Hence I feel this article is important. The article is well referenced and cited. It has been copyedited a couple of times. Please provide constructive feedback which would help to make this a FA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Restarted by Raul, old nom. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed posts copied from old FAC; this is a new FAC; new opposes should be actionable and current. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The composition needs more cohesion, integration, internal logic, and clarity. I have provided on the talk page examples from a single paragraph in the lead to illustrate some outstanding problems. The independent copy-editor who next edits the article will need to pay especial attention to these issues. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Per criteria 1a, and 4. Also per above. Examples of failing 1a can be seen in many areas of the article, including inconsistent spellings (Kanaka dasa), inconsistent capitalizing of certain letters (carnatic, king Wodeyar) and blatant grammatical/spelling errors (though instead of 'through'). However, there is some improvement since the last nom in at least removing some of the POV type statements. Examples of 4 was already discussed in the old nom, as these unnnecessary details make this article a list of mini-biographies of authors of Kannada literature, which as such, would probably be more appropriate as a FL than an FA. There are various ways to maintain a similar structure, but this is not possible without trimming down on the unnecessary details, with the exception of those details directly relevant to the bodies of literature that are being talked about. (Note: the editor's refusal to address this point in the previous nom does not equate to this criteria being satisfied as there are other editors of the broad Wikipedia community who feel similarly). In addition to the above, the Vaishnava section sees some inaccuracies (a kirthana is not necessarily devotional in nature, nor is it necessarily in praise of god - it refers to a particular structure of a composition, that can be of a devotional nature in praise of god - very different!) This definition and mention of kirthana should be omitted, as the spread of krithis as known currently, really only came after it was standardized by the Trinity. Devaranamas on the other hand, may fit such a definition. There may be other issues regarding factual accuracy, neutrality and reliability of sources in certain other areas, but it will not form the basis for this oppose currently due to time constraints. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dk Reply Some of your objects are still unclear and nebulous. Regarding your complaint about "too much details on some poets", there have been other reviewers who have lauded it. So I cant really accept your words alone as expert comments. These are individual reviewer tastes. So there is no question of reducing it. I will surely look into spelling inconsistency, capitalization, prose and such. It would greatly help reduce my time looking for them, if you can pin-point it. This way you also play a role in improving the article.


 * Regarding technical erros w.r.t "Kirthans", "Devaranamas" etc, I realise you may have more knowledge in these areas then I do. So please feel free to indicate how exactly it needs to be corrected and I will be glad to make the correction, just as I did with your suggestion regarding the singing poet Purandaradasa.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose It doesn't fully satisfy criteria 1a; It also doesn't fully satisfy criteria 4 ;too. much emphasis on authors and unnecessary details. Kensplanet Talk  E-mail  Contributions  11:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without examples, this is not an actionable oppose. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support A fascinating subject and page. This page can only continue to grow and enhance Wikipedia. Giano (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Support Finally a Dravidian language ‘s full length literary output has been highlighted as best as it can be. It can only get better. Taprobanus (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same motivations in the previous FAC not corrected + quoting the other opposes. -- MOJSKA   666  -  Leave a message here  05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose above: The article is also poorly sourced. For example, 34 footnotes refer to an author, Narasimhacharya, whose book was published in 1934, but it is cited as being published in 1988 (which is the date of the facsimile reprint). See here for the original reference. I have since corrected the main references, but the error continues in the footnotes. A citation in a footnote (Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188) doesn't show up anywhere in full form in the references. A total of 80 footnotes cite references published more than fifty years ago. Two modern articles on Kannada literature (Pollock, Sheldon (1998) and Nagaraj, D. R. (2003)) are conspicuous by their absence. Well, actually, the latter is cited, but incorrectly, in a footnote for the sentence: "It (Kavirajamarga) also refers to compositions that were peculiar to Kannada: the chattana and the bedande (poems comprising several stanzas that were meant to be sung with the optional use of a musical instrument)" (the citation given is: Nagaraja, 2003, p. 332). However, page 332 of the cited text shows no such mention. I have left comments and the full citations to the two modern references on the article talk page here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply


 * I own the book by Narasimhacharya the date of which is 1988. I will check the book and see if it carries the original publication date (1934). If it does I will change it. If not, the 1988 stays as is. I dont know anything about facsimile reprints. In addition, there could be page number differences between early and later editions and could introduce inaccuracies.
 * DK reply My book says Reprint (1988) but does not give the original year of publication. So this is the reason I felt its better to keep it at that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will remove the citation (Sangave V. A, pp. 187–188) which was not added by me but by another user (User:Sarvagnya) during his copy edits.
 * The books by Sheldon Pollack and Nagaraj, both of which I have read are very general books which really dont go into any details about Kannada writings, authors, kingdoms, socio-religious movements, details of great classics, as the other books I have referenced do. So this is an invalid oppose.
 * you wrote A total of 80 footnotes cite references published more than fifty years ago is an invalid oppose. There is no rule that only modern books need to be referenced in majority. However, majority, if not all the 80 citations you mention (but have not pointed out) can be replaced by modern books that I own. That is the level of confidence I have in the work I have put in. As such, the older writers : Naraimhacharya, B.L. Rice, E.P. Rice etc. are considered authorities on Kannada literature and culture in general. Benjamin L. Rice did to Kannada literature, what Henry Heras did to Indus Valley seals/research. However, unless you can prove to me that such a rule exists, regarding the usage of older verses newer books, no changes will be made and your oppose considered invalid.
 * Regarding The citation given is: Nagaraja, 2003, p. 332 comment, I will check this. Things tend to move around during copy edits. But as always, my citations will be corrected and in place by tonight.thank you for working so hard on this FAC.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DK reply This another invalid oppose. Pages 13, 17 of Narasimhacharya which is also cited explains clearly chattana and the bedande (poems comprising several stanzas that were meant to be sung with the optional use of a musical instrument. The book by Sheldon had its citation off by "one page". Page 333 not 332. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply by F&f:
 * You might own it, but here the British Academic and National Library Catalogue. It says, that your book is a reprint of a 1940 edition, which as far as I can tell, was a reprint of the 1934 edition, since the author died in 1936; but, even so, you can't cite it to be later than 1940.
 * The references Nagaraja 2003 and Pollock 1998 are not books, but articles. Here are the citations:
 * Nagaraj, D. R. (2003) "Critical Tensions in the History of Kannada Literary Culture," pp. 323-383, in Literary Cultures in History: Reconstructions from South Asia (ed. by Sheldon I. Pollock). Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Pp. 1066 pages. ISBN:0520228219
 * Pollock, Sheldon (1998) "The Cosmopolitan Vernacular," The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 57, No. 1. (Feb., 1998), pp. 6-37.
 * Your claim that, "The books by Sheldon Pollack and Nagaraj, both of which I have read are very general books which really dont go into any details about Kannada writings, authors, kingdoms, socio-religious movements, details of great classics ...," doesn't jibe with the actual content of the articles. Nagaraja spends the entire article (all 60 pages) discussing the nitty-gritty of the history of Kannada literature (especially issues of antiquity and the nature of the early literature); Pollock spends a full third of the article (pp. 15-24, 26-27).  Any history of Kannada literature will need to pay attention to these important modern references.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I have paid attention to twenty books, ranging from 1900-2006. The article is well referenced already. I have no more to say regarding the matter. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nagaraja spends the entire article (all 60 pages) discussing the nitty-gritty of the history of Kannada literature (especially issues of antiquity and the nature of the early literature) - Yes.  And the "nitty-gritties" are out of the scope of this article.  They will be taken up when we move to Kannada language, Kavirajamarga, Vachana, Literary criticism in Kannada etc.,.  This is a WP:SS article about "Kannada literature" and the sources cited in the article are way more than enough and infact are citedfar more often than Nagraj or Pollock.  Nagraj and Pollock themselves cite these scholars and this oppose about the sources being very old is invalid.  As long as the sources satisfy WP:RS, they are fine.  On the other hand, if you can show that any info in the article is dated, obsolete, falsifiable, wrong etc., I urge you to come forward with a list.  I do not see any part of the article that has any obsolete info.  The very fact that a 30s book should be in print in 1988 should say something about it. Sarvagnya 03:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Well, the article has just got bettered from the time it is first nominated. This article, by all means, should have got promoted before the restart of this FAC. With more copy-editing, more fine tuning, it is just more polished now. It is well-written, thanks to the sustained improvement through copyedits by Dinesh, User:Michael Devore and User:Sarvagnya; Comprehensive – Probably the best coverage to the balanced handling of "we need more details on this" vs "too many details on this". As I mentioned in previous FAC, the more detailed materials have been distributed to child articles, maintaining this article's summary style. Very well sourced, especially providing multiple references for significant claims, in neutral manner, from a wide variety of authors and publications. Precise lead, consistent formatting of headings and footnotes/ references. Ample images illustrating the text covered. I do not see anything that is failing per criteria, or anything which is actionable objection. - KNM Talk 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: criterion three concerns:
 * Image:Purandara.jpg has an obsolete PD claim; update is needed.
 * Image:BMSrikantiah.jpg, Image:Kuvempu.jpg, Image:Shivaramakaranth.jpg, Image:Venkatesh Iyengar.jpg, Image:VKGokak.jpg and Image:DRBendre.jpg all lack adequate fair use rationales with “necessary components” as defined by WP:RAT. This may be moot, however, as images appear to violate WP:NFCC#3A (“As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”).  Why are this many fair use images necessary?  How does actually seeing these people significantly contribute to our understanding of literature (required per NFCC#8)?   ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 03:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply The fair use rationale already exists for these images. The total number of such images is perhaps 6 out of 18 as a whole. I have commented out one image if that helps.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I have replaced one more if the images you complained about. So that makes it 4 images out of 17.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read my comments critically; I never claimed FURs were missing. You have not addressed or responded to my concerns.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dk Reply Sorry, but I dont understand. Can you please explain me what sort of images will help you better understand the literature? Your arguements could be applied to just about any image on this article.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, my concerns are based on the criteria for inclusion of non-free content policy; this policy (and, consequently, my "arguments") does not apply to free or "free enough" images (i.e. the article's other images). I lack knowledge or information sufficient to indicate what alternative images would be a contribution to my understanding; I suspect none are necessary.  I do have information and belief, however, that the aforementioned fair use images, among other concerns, do not significantly contribute to my/our understanding and are, therefore, in violation of FU policy. I’m asking you to, among other things, explain and articulate why each of these images is necessary and the significant contribution each image makes to our understanding of this body of literature.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the writers depicted in the article are dead and it will be impossible to get a new photograph of them. As such, they are fair use for use in their own articles and in Kannada literature.  This is by no means stretching the FU policy. Sarvagnya 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 10 criteria (more if you count sub-criteria), all of which must be satisfied; replaeability is but one. Use in other articles is not being discussed here.  Please read WP:NFCC.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Dk Reply I have commented out the images you pointed out. The **Image:Purandara.jpg image is now fixed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose (sources) ( Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) I'm afraid my oppose is very valid. Not only is the Nagaraja (2003) article not "out of the scope of this article," (as suggested by user:Sarvagnya) but it is also, as its own title ("Critical tensions in the history of Kannada literature") suggests, imminently about the history of Kannada literature; in fact it is the most up-to-date critical synopsis of that history. As for user:Sarvagnya's claim that these authors (Nagaraja or Pollock) themselves cite the somewhat outdated secondary sources used in the Kannada literature article, nothing could be farther from the truth. To be sure, some sources do make their appearance in the odd footnote or two, but always as examples of earlier historical writing or in acknowledgment as translations, not as authoritative sources themselves.

So, for example, a literary anthology edited by Kittel (1875), unreferenced here, is mentioned when an example from it is presented. Similarly, E. P. Rice&mdash;cited numerous times in this article&mdash;is mentioned only in passing in Nagaraja ("Rice's dating of 800CE is not reliable.") Only one source (Nilakanta Sastry (1955))&mdash;cited 16 times in this article&mdash;is in the bibliographies of either article, and appears as the following footnote: "See Nilakanta Sastry (1955) and Venkata Ramanaya (1935), two texts that were major influences on the writings of Karnataka histories until recently.  Now the work of Stein, Ludden and Karashima, among others, has replaced that of the Indian scholars. (Nagaraja (2003), p. 342)"  Unfortunately, none of the books of Burt Stein (Peasant State and Society in Medieval South India, (Oxford, 1980), Vijayanagara (Cambridge, 1989)), or   David Ludden (Peasant History in South India (Princeton), 1990; Early Capitalism and Local History in South India (Oxford-India), 2005), or Noburu Karashima (South Indian History and Society (Oxford-India, 1984), are cited anywhere in the article as historical references.

Neither are even more recent works like, William Jackson's Vijayanagara Voices:Exploring South Indian History and Hindu Literature (Ashgate, 2005). Instead, the histories cited, when they are not pre-1955, are by local historians, not internationally known, like S. U. Kamath &mdash;whose book, originally published in Kannada in 1973, thereafter translated into English in 1980, and reprinted in 2001, is nevertheless cited as Kamath (2001), instead of Kamath (1980). I note too that Narasimhacharya (1934) continues to appear in the footnotes as Narasimhacharya (1988) in spite of my bringing up the issue both on the talk page and here. As for user:Sarvagnya's remark that facsimile reprints would not have been made were the book not considered important, all I can say is that facsimile reprints of thousands, perhaps millions, of books are being made these days in many areas of scholarship, not because the sources themselves are considered authoritative today, but because they provide examples of earlier scholarship, which are important in such fields such as historiography and criticism.

The article remains very unreliably sourced. I fear&mdash;as far as the quality of the sources is concerned&mdash;it is in much worse shape than I originally thought it was in. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I am sure the FAC director has taken note of your objections. I have no more to say on the issue of sources and references. Thanks Fowler.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for user:Sarvagnya's remark that facsimile reprints would not have been made were the book not considered important, all I can say is that facsimile reprints of thousands, perhaps millions, of books are being made these days in many areas of scholarship, not because the sources themselves are considered authoritative today, but because they provide examples of earlier scholarship, which are important in such fields such as historiography and criticism.


 * bah! Enough with the straw man ridden pussyfooting. It is unbridled speculation on your part that RN's book, for example, is being reprinted only out of academic interest and not because he is considered authoritative.  When I said that Pollock and Nagraj also cite RN et al., I only meant to point out that RN et al. continue to be cited by the scholarly world in peer reviewed literature.  I didnt expect you to go hunting for them in the footnotes of the two works you cited.


 * So now, dont beat around the bush. Are you suggesting that the sources used in the article are not RS?  If yes, then say so and demonstrate that they are not RS.  If that is not what you're saying, then your grumbling is baseless.  Grumbling the use of RN, Kittel, BLR, EPR et al., on Kannada literature is like whining against the use of Monier-Williams or Macdonell on Sanskrit or Indo-Aryan languages or something like that.  Just because an author died a long time ago doesnt invalidate his or her scholarship.


 * Nagaraj's work, for all its merits and your sales pitch, is not explicitly about Kannada literature. It is about some of the nitty-gritties of Kannada's literary history (laced with generous amounts of editorialising) and parts of it are even about the development of Kannada language as a literary medium.  As such, it is an important work, but no more important than the works that have been cited in the article.  I do not see anything in Nagraj's work which is at odds with what is written in the article or vice versa.  I could practically throw in a ref to Pollock on Nagaraj on every second line in the article because they dont seem to disagree about anything that the article says.  If you think they do, point out how and where or your oppose is as inactionable as it is invalid.  Sarvagnya 22:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This article does not meet FA criteria 1d, Ic and 4. I fully agree with the comments and concerns of Fowler&amp;fowler. The article is not neutral (will provide examples later.) About FA 1c), I should point out that WP:RS guidelines are not really followed in many places. RS clearly states, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is significant. WP:RS further states about scholarship, Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. The key words in this context are "usually", and "scientists, scholars and researchers". Outdated unproven claims are presented here, and some of the books published and cited are not necessarily known for fact-checking and accuracy. (examples of where some of this is failing in the article will be elaborated later). FA citeria 4 is not followed. I have already pointed out in the talk pages. The chief concern I have is, in many places the article merely lists names of authors adding little else about the literary work or its highlight or criticisms (sort of FA 4). Just an example: See Kannada_literature, where the lead para of this section devotes 4 lines but only one of those lines pretends to talk about Kannada literature, though it is again a vain list of names with no content. In many sections there is more talk of dynasties, rather than the literary accomplishment or a flavor of it. In general, excepting the modern era, discussion or description of "Kannada Literature" is extremely lacking. This is definitely not meeting FA on multiple counts. while I oppose FA category for this article on genuine grounds (from my reading), I wish to record my sincere appreciation and thanks to DK and his team.--Aadal (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I am sure the FAC director has taken note of your objections too. Thanks you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of my oppose (prose) ( Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC))  After I left my comments on the prose in paragraph 2 of the lead (see link up top), some effort has been made to improve the lead. In particular, user:Michael Devore has made a sincere effort to say things carefully and without hype. However, others seem to have jumped in and added new material that has all the clumsiness of the previous writing. So, for example, someone has added, "In terms of literary character, it (Kannada literature) is rationalised under the Jain, Veerashaiva and Vaishnava heads - reflective of the three dominant faiths which informed and fostered Kannada literature until the advent of the modern era." Although "character" can mean "characteristics" or "features" ("Literary character" usually means something else), "rationalise" can mean "organize," (but usually when talking of scientific systems, businesses, or economies), "heads" can mean "categories," "reflective" can mean "a reflection of" (e.g. "A man's times are reflective of the man, as well as a man of the times."), and "inform" can mean "inspire" or "animate," in the right contexts, all together&mdash;as in the sentence&mdash;they sound very quaint and uninformative, hardly something a new reader wants to puzzle over in the third sentence of the lead. The article needs to be copy-edited by one person. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is beyond just nitpicking now. This is trolling.  Once again, fwiw, your oppose on prose grounds is invalid.  I am sure nobody else is having trouble comprehending it and you seem to go to great lengths to try and NOT understand something.  So you can continue to pound away here, but I will not be dignifying it with responses anymore.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 Final part Continuation of my oppose (hyperbole) ( Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)) Both Nagaraja (2003) and Pollock (1998) regard the inscriptions (that preceded the first extant work, Kavirajamarga (KRM) (850 CE)) to be "public narratives," or public "literary activity," but not "literature." Neither would endorse the second sentence of the lead that the literature is 1500 years old. Similarly, the vanished works and authors cited in KRM speak to earlier literary practice but not "literature." Neither Nagaraja nor Pollock would endorse another sentence in the lead that it is "widely acknowledged" that prior to KRM (850 CE), "a fully cultivated literary tradition must have existed going back a few centuries." (where two of the three citations are dated 1897 and 1921). Pollock, for example, when speaking of KRM, says, "The first extant text in Kannada describes how difficult a task it is for the author to identify literary models for the prescriptive project before him: he is forced to "hunt for scraps" of Kannada literature like a mendicant ..." Pollock goes on to say, "Kannada literature (in the sense I have been using the term throughout) was a recent invention, of perhaps the eighth century, ..." The reason why my oppose is actionable is that the lead has at least two examples of hyperbole; those can certainly be done away with. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead says that the history of KL "spans" 1500 years - which is as reasonable as it can get. The lead, in the very second paragraph also makes it clear that extant works start with the KRM c. 850.  The early attestations section was renamed from "Early/extinct literature" to "attestations" to make this even more clear.  There is no hyperbole in the article unless deludes oneself to see it.  Inactionable.  Are you done?  Sarvagnya 00:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I see little difference between "the literature is 1500 years old" and the "history of the literature spans 1500 years." In any case, I don't see either D. R. Nagaraj (2003) or Sheldon Pollock (1998) endorsing the second version either.  I certainly don't see them endorsing the existence of a "fully cultivated literary tradition a few centuries" before 850 CE.  Those two sentences will need to go or be replaced by more nuanced statements.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final part of my oppose (lacks critical perspectives or analysis, violation of 1(b)). ( Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC))  The article is not comprehensive. It packs a chronology, for sure, but it has no systematic analysis, no socio-historical world view, and no critical perspectives, whether historical or literary, in the entire article. Nowhere is it said, for example, that the emergence of literature in Kannada was a part of the broad "vernacularization" of South and Southeast Asia towards the end of the first millennium; writers not only of Kannada, but also those of other local languages like Telegu, Malayalam, Marathi, Oriya and even faraway Khmer emerged from under the shadow of the trans-local languages, Sanskrit or Tamil, to compose their own literary works. The one or two places where I could find any remarks that might qualify as "perspective," they seemed superficial and simplistic ("The 14th century saw major upheavals in geo-politics of southern India with Muslim empires invading from the north. The Vijayanagara Empire stood as a bulwark against these invasions and ensured an atmosphere conducive to the fine arts.")

(No examples) Furthermore, no examples of the literature are presented. Although meters are faithfully enumerated in abstract ("These included the tripadi (three-line verse, in use from 7th century), one of the oldest native metres; the shatpadi (six-line verse, in use from 1165), of which six types exist; the ragale (lyrical narrative compositions, in use from 1160); the sangatya (compositions meant to be sung with a musical instrument, in use from 1232) and the akkara"), the reader emerges with no real feeling for the poetic diction of Kannada poetry nor the rhetorical devices of Kannada prose.

(No narrative) Enumeration, in fact, seems to be the modus operandi of the article; little attempt is made to develop a narrative. Examples like, "various literary genres such as romance, fiction, erotica, satire, folk songs, fables and parables, musical treatises and musical compositions were popular. A wealth of literature dealing in subjects such as mathematics, sciences such as astronomy, meteorology, veterinary science and medicine, astrology, grammar, logic, philosophy, poetry, prosody, drama, rhetoric, chronicles, biography, history, and cuisine, as well as dictionaries and encyclopedias are available." in the "Contents and genre" section are, alas, all too frequent. In the end, the article is little more than a vast chronology.

(No criticism or critical perspectives) Almost nothing critical is said either about the events or the works. The description of the "works" sometimes seems to mimic the glorified language of the "works" themselves ("To this period belonged Kumara Vyasa (the pen name of Naranappa), a doyen of medieval epic poets and one the most influential Vaishnava poets of the time. He was particularly known for his sophisticated use of metaphors and had even  earned the title Rupaka Samrajya Chakravarti ("Emperor of the land of Metaphors")."

I feel that (i) unprofessional prose (violation 1(a)), (ii) lack of any systematic analysis, world view, or critical perspectives (violation 1(b)), (iii) unreliable sourcing (violation 1(c)), and (iv) hyperbole and lack of neutrality (violation 1(d)) plague not just the lead, but the entire article. A good copy-edit will certainly help, but I'm not sure how much. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Final part of my oppose: I was going to add some examples as I said yesterday, but seeing that Fowler&amp;fowler  had so well articulated some of the same things, however, much better than I could have done, I conclude my oppose here by fully concurring with the observations of  Fowler&amp;fowler .--Aadal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on prose issues. I'll outline some examples from the lede and number my comments for easy referencing:
 * 1. "Kannada literature is the body of literature written in Kannada: a language ..., and written using the Kannada script." The colon is the incorrect punctuation (replace with comma) and the dual use of the word "written" is confusing.
 * 2. "In terms of literary character, it is rationalised under ...". Do you mean classified or categorized ? Also is the "it" supposed to refer to "Kannada literature, or "History of Kannada literature" (as it does now) ?
 * 3. "the three dominant faiths which informed and fostered" which -> that
 * 4. "Consequently, the bulk of the literature in the pre-modern era was religious and didactic in theme, though a good number of secular works were also written." The second part ("though a good number ...") is redundant, besides being a bit colloquial. Also "Consequently" is incorrect, since as presently structured, the sentences imply that the dominant theme is religious and didactic because the "literary character is rationalised under the Jain, Veerashaiva and Vaishnava heads"!
 * 5. "Starting with the Kavirajamarga (c. 850), until the middle of the 12th century, literature in Kannada was almost exclusively written by the Jains who also found eager patrons in the Chalukya, Ganga, Rashtrakuta and Hoysala kings." Somewhat stilted writing (I know this is a judgment call); and why "also" ? Who were the other patrons ?
 * 6. It would be better to switch the order of the two sentences in the second paragraph (after some minor rephrasing), i.e., talk about pre-Kavirajamarga, before talking about Kavirajamarga-12th century.
 * 7. "spawned a new stream of literature which flourished..." Mixed metaphors ?
 * 8. "during the reign of the Vijayanagara empire" I think the reign of is redundant (not sure)
 * 9. "A decline in Jain influence and writings during the reign of the Vijayanagara empire in the 14th century was followed by vigorous growth" Vigorous growth of what; do you mean Jain writing was reinvigorated, as the sentence currently implies ?
 * 10. I assume that the literature of Haridasa saints is classified as Vaishnava. This may not be clear to the reader, who may wonder what the category, mentioned in the first paragraph, contains. Similarly, does the ancient category, refer to pre-Kavirajamarga era, pre-Veerashaiva literature, or something else altogether ?
 * 11. "After the decline" -> "Following the decline" to indicate that they this is a causal relationship and not simply coincidental.
 * 12. "the seat of patronage shifted to the Mysore court" From ?
 * 13. "era of modern literature which saw" Need a comma before which.
 * 14. "Contemporary Kannada literature remains the most decorated" sounds somewhat peacock-y to me. Also, remains -> is, since most decorated wouldn't make sense in the pre-modern era.
 * Please note that I have no personal knowledge of the subject other than what I learned from the article (which was a lot!), so I cannot judge its content, quality of references, or organization. With that caveat, the article content does appear encyclopedic to me and I would love to see this article be an FA eventually, but I don't think the prose is up to the standard yet. Abecedare (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I will take a close look at all your issues today. Also, the article is now undergoing thorough copy edits. These issues will be ironed out shortly. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply I have specifically tried to tweak the lead per your suggestions, but await fully blown copy edits any moment now from an different pair of eyes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Postscript to my oppose (hyperbole, violation 1 (d) (user:Fowler&fowler).  I have added recent publicly accessible evidence against some exaggerated claims in the lead on the talk page.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * DK Reply It may seem exaggerated to you, but not to the dozen or so scholars whose names I have provided on the same talk page. Sorry, no changes.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Closing note: this nomination has been up for a month, but there are still ongoing, fundamental copyedit issues. Sorting out ce issues before nomination will help the article succeed at FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.