Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chola Dynasty/archive1


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

The article was kept by User:Marskell 16:19, 6 June 2008.

Review commentary

 * WikiProject Former countries, Noticeboard for India-related topics, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Tamil civilization, User:Sundar, User:Vadakkan, User:Ravn, User:Venu62 notified.

Most importantly, fails 1c. Several sources are suspect or incomplete. I asked for source details long back on the talk page and havent received any responses. Also fails 2c, 1a and perhaps few/many other criteria. However, without the all important 1c being taken care of, it would be difficult and indeed unnecessary to critique this article further. 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs)


 * Note: I've corrected several licenses/summaries on the Commons side. Remaining criterion three issues include:
 * Image:LocationChola empire sm.png, Image:Prambanan.jpg and Image:NatarajaMET.JPG need verifiable sources per WP:IUP. I assume they're self-made but, if that's the case, it should be explicitly stated.  As an example, Image:StandingHanumanCholaDynasty11thCentury.jpg (which is used in the article) does this correctly.
 * Image:Uttama coin.png: image's source explicitly prohibits commercial use. We can't use non-commercial images per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
 * See WP:MOS regarding sandwiching of text between images. ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Elcobboal. regarding Image:Uttama coin.png, the image's source has released all images under Cc-by-2.5 at the bottom of the page. Doesn't that override the non-commercial statement inside? I'll get back on the other images. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting contradiction. I'll buy that it overrides; they explicitly mention Wikipedia and provide a link directly to the CC-by 2.5 license.  Thanks for the catch.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 13:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Further,
 * Image:LocationChola empire sm.png - this version shows that it's self created, but after it was moved to Commons by a different user (he links to the enwiki image page), this page was deleted.
 * Image:Prambanan.jpg - I've left a message at User_talk:Ravn.
 * Image:NatarajaMET.JPG - Same as the first image. Please see here.
 * I hope the image issues will be resolved soon. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alas, without the mop I can't see the since deleted pages for the first and third bullet. Would you mind updating the images accordingly on the Commons side?  I'm happy to do so, too, if you want to give me the original text.  (Here is a good summary tag example for images transfered to the Commons).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 14:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. For what you do, you should be handed the mop immediately. :-) -- Sundar \talk \contribs 14:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed sandwitching concerns (hopefully). -- Sundar \talk \contribs 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed indeed. Thanks.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: the nominator's original concerns have been answered on the talkpage, and rested upon an apparent misunderstanding of footnotes. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ah.. the fine art of trolling! for the record, no.  My concern about footnotes has not been addressed.  I asked for details (book, p #, ISBN etc) for the citations and was simply told that the "citations" were in fact, "footnotes".  Apart from the fact that even footnotes have to indicate where they're coming from (it would be OR otherwise), what we need there are "citations".  You dontcite sentences and paragraphs with "footnotes".  And, this one below, is an instance of a "footnote"(?) masquerading as a "citation" --


 * ^13 - Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland


 * Can somebody show me the "footnote" part in the above "cite"? Sarvagnya 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! You just called me a troll! You win a small cup, and the admiration of all comers for your sensitivity, accuracy, and regard for our policies!
 * I'm glad that of the 20-plus footnotes you complained were "malformed" you managed to find one which was not cited. Well done! You're right, that completely justifies your statement above.
 * About "even footnotes must be cited" - well, certainly. Except when, of course, they're footnotes, placed there, as guidelines suggest, to not break up the flow of the prose. Have fun accusing more random people of trolling, and helping, in your small way, make this project a better place! -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on "Early Cholas" and "Interregnum" sub-sections
 * This reference needs more information. As it is, it doesn't make much sense to me.
 * Done.


 * Inside the citations, whatever written in non-English will not be readable and hence not verifiable. They can just be avoided. Eg:
 * Done.


 * In the Interregnum subsection, two sentences in the first paragraphs start with "Little is known .." and both are uncited. They will need to be rewritten with proper attribution to reliable sources.
 * Modified one sentence, provided citations for both.


 * The Pallavas and Pandyas seem to have left the Cholas alone for the most part; however, possibly out of regard for their reputation, they accepted Chola princesses in marriage and employed in their service Chola princes who were willing to accept it. – Reads more like a speculation; and source information is not clear. Needs to be reworded and book and author information needs to be provided.
 * I'm not entirely sure about this one, am still looking for a citation. If I cannot find any, I'll probably just remove the sentence.
 * I have now modified this sentence and added citation. --Madhu (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang, who spent several months in Kanchipuram during 639 – 640 writes about the 'kingdom of Culi-ya'. – Not sure how this sentence is relevant to this article. Needs to be addressed.
 * Sentence modified and placed at a more logical location.


 * Despite this loss in influence and power, it is unlikely that the Cholas lost total grip of the territory around Urayur, their old capital. – How? Needs explanation and reference.
 * Sentence now reads - Despite this loss in influence and power, it is unlikely that the Cholas lost total grip of the territory around Urayur, their old capital, as Vijayalaya, when he rose to prominence hailed from this geographical area. Does that make sense? Added citation as well.


 * However, nothing definite is known of their connection to the early Cholas. It is possible that a branch of the Tamil Cholas migrated north ... – Again, reads as a speculation and unreferenced. The phrases such as "nothing definite", "it is possible that" etc must be best avoided unless they are direct quotes of scholarly opinions. Citation needed. - KNM Talk 21:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to However, it is not known if they had any relation to the early Cholas. to be in sync with the source. Citation added. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments on Chalukya Cholas subsection
 * The entire subsection is uncited. Needs to be well referenced per FA criteria. - KNM Talk 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added citations for the entire section (and various other sections as well). Please review the modified article and let me know if you still have any pending concerns. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Needs a copy-editing run through. The "Later Cholas" section looks terrible, no refs, no links, and should perhaps be moved out to a sub-article, with the essential points retained and clean-up. The sources in the "References" section are 4/5 by two authors, though the notes use others. The citation style repeats most book details in full every time.  A good bit of work needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article no longer has "Later Cholas" section, it has been changed to "Chalukya Cholas". I have increased the number of sources (it has more than doubled, actually) since the article was nominated for FAR and the number of citations has more than tripled. I've also addressed issues d with citation styles. Let me know if you still have any concerns. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Article was promoted as FA while the name of the article was Chola Dynasty and the lead was reflecting according to the article title. A particular user is moving it again and again to Chola Empire name, without any consensus to move for it. The lead section is totally changed from the version when the article was promoted to FA status. If required, these two should be considered as two separate topics and developed on their own articles. A featured article, after it is promoted, cannot be moved into another name (whose meaning differs significantly from previous title), and the lead totally changed – that too without any discussion and consensus. Any attempt to inform that user about the FA'ness of this article, is in vain, and resulting in an apparent edit war, bringing 1(e), stability criterion, at stake. I suggest whole article to be rewritten, followed with fresh rounds of copyedits and resubmitted to FAC. The current version does not qualify FA criteria by any means; especially the newly added/replaced sections such as 'Later Cholas' which in its current form, is totally awful for an FA quality article. - KNM Talk 18:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chola Dynasty vs Chola Empire
 * I've restored the article to a stable version and left a polite message at the new user's talk page. We can discuss and decide if it needs to be split or rewritten. I believe that the best course would be to decide on the main articles and the summary first. Write the main articles without disturbing this FA and then come back to the summary article. If we feel that a major rewrite is required, we can FAR it and then reapply after the rewrite. Right now, nothing needs to be done to this article, IMO. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite a lot of paragraphs have no sources. A lot of the inlines are actually footnotes/extra info, so even though some paras have one inline at the end, there is actually no source attached. However, a more pressing concern is the large amount of peacock/subjective comments that are written in teh narrative voice as Wikipedia POV, rather than being denoted as being a scholar(s)'s opinion. Examples are
 * "Chola inscriptions cite many works, and it is a tragedy that most of them have been lost to us"
 * "It is considered as the model for Kamban for his masterpiece Ramavatharam" needs cite
 * "Ramavatharam is the greatest epic in Tamil Literature"
 * "The Chola period is also remarkable for its sculptures and bronzes. Among the existing specimens in museums around the world and in the temples of South India may be seen many fine figures of Siva in various forms, such as Vishnu and his consort Lakshmi, and the Siva saints."
 * "The maturity and grandeur to which the Chola architecture had evolved found expression in the two temples of Tanjavur and Gangaikondacholapuram. The magnificent Siva temple of Thanjavur, completed around 1009, is a fitting memorial to the material achievements of the time of Rajaraja."
 * "Under the Cholas, the Tamil country reached new heights of excellence in art, religion and literature. In all of these spheres, the Chola period marked the culmination of movements that had begun in an earlier age under the Pallavas. Monumental architecture in the form of majestic temples and sculpture in stone and bronze reached a finesse never before achieved in India."

and many more.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), ref formatting (2c), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir,

To begin with the title of the article is wrong, smaller kingdoms in other pages like the Hoysalas have been given the title of empires where as an empire with overseas territories and that too for not a small period (in fact, I have in my possession an official brochure published by the Govt. of Sri Lanka itself, which says that invasions from the Tamil country on Sri Lanka leading to its occupation) which lasted for almost 1500 years. These include earlier invasions from the Pallavas, then (when the Cholas were weak between around 435 AD to 848 AD, before being revived by Vijayalaya) it was the turn of the Pandiyan and Chera kings who held sway over the Island of Sri Lanka. Subsequently right from the times of Aditya I and indeed his son Parantaka I who ruled from 905 AD the occupation of Madurai and Ilam by the Cholas started in and around 930 and lasted at least till 1100 AD when the Lankan kings freed themselves, later, the Chola kings occupied Ilangai for various periods during the times of Rajaraja II, Kulothunga II, Rajadhiraja-II and Kulothunga III in addition to their occupation of Kalinga, Telugu country between Nellore and Visaiyawadai (vijayawada) for the most part of their existence.

So the title Chola dynasty to the deeds of kings who built an empire is nothing but a gross misnomer.

Also deliberate (in order to make the chola empire look like an extension of the Chalukya kingdom) is the title given to the maternal line of Chola Kings who have been (sic)'titled' Chalukya Cholas. It is a fact of history that when ruling over Vengi and over Bastar district in M.P. Prince Rajendra Chalukya a grandson of Rajendra chola I through his daughter (Ammanga-??) was indeed known by that name, but he was quick to change his name to Kulothunga Chola (I), a practice which continued with succeeding kings till the end of the Cholas. Scores of grants, plates and inscriptions of Cholas can be found all over South India all the way up to Eluru, Vizag, Dowleswaram as indeed of successive chola kings at Tanjore, Tiruvaiyaru and the Ranganathaswami Temple in Srirangam where none of the kings from Kulothunga I till Rajendra III have ever been addressed as either Chalukya Cholas or indeed Chola Chalukyas.

If somehow the authors of this article are convinced that the name Chalukya cholas should indeed stick, then let them adopt the same practice in the case of kings succeeding Vikramaditya VI who was married to a Chola princess as well as successors of Hoysala Veera Ballala II who was the son in law of Kulothunga III as Chola Chalukyas or even Chalukya Cholas and Hoysala Cholas or Chola Hoysalas.

User _Earth was very correct in saying that this article does not deserve FA status because its very title is in dispute.

I wonder if there are any right thinking wikipedian admins left in this website who would be keenly following the goings on this page and first of all, take the step of removing this 'article' from the coveted FA list so that a proper opportunity would be afforded for a complete re-construction of this page by backing it up with accurate data, removal of misleading and malicious content currently pervading all over this page so that the Chola pages have any chance of resurrection.

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Be very careful of what I said. I was referring to a particular edition of the article which has no lead section, thus breaking WP:MOS. I advocate stripping the article of the FA if your style of article structure is adopted. __earth (Talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User Earth, there is nothing like 'my style' of this article, I had started to make contributions and before one could link the text with the appropriate sources, unwarranted interventions and revert wars started with me getting blocked twice over.

Besides, for your kind info, I suppose if you were to make a neutral reading of this article it clearly has been filled with misinformation especially the section being called Chalukya Cholas. Though I for one doubt the neutrality of historians, what is even more objectionable is the fact that they go on to christen and baptize the later Chola kings by naming them as Chalukya Cholas as if the Chola empire was under the protection of the Chalukya or Eastern Chalukya kingdoms. This itself is reason enough for removing the FA tag from the Chola article, which in its present form itself it does not deserve.

If in Hoysala pages and indeed in the Chalulya pages scores of inscriptions of the kings of those dynasties can be quoted with their proper names and their titles like Trailokyamalla or Nolambavadigonda etc. then proper attention, if paid to both the names and titles of the later Chola (dubbed wrongly as Chalukya Cholas) starting from Kulothunga I from 1070 to the last king Rajendra III who was deposed in 1279, these kings always called themselves as (for example) Tribhuvanachakravartin Kulothunga Chola and in the process they got categorized as Kulothunga I or II based upon the year of their grant being issued. Kulothunga Chola II also called himself Tribhuvanachakravartin which was after his conquests of Karur, Ilangai, Madurai and Kalinga (after which he also built the Kampahareswara temple near Kumbakonam). other later Chola kings like Rajaraja II, Rajaraja III, Rajadhiraja II etc. all had the title 'CHOLA' suffixed to their main name.

What I want to submit is that under no circumstances and not a single king from Kulothunga Chola I to Rajendra III ever had the Chalukya or Chalukya Chola or Chola Chalukya titles suffixed to their names, but only 'Chola' suffixed to their names for example Rajendra Chola (III) or Rajadhiraja Chola (II).

While adding the suffix Chalukya Chola to the later Cholas simply because the first king Kulothunga I was borne in the Eastern Chalukya household and also while acknowledging Kulothunga Chola I had the name and title Rajendra Chalukya as an Eastern Chalukyan prince, it is worth mentioning and noting that upon ascending the Chola throne, Rajendra immediately took the title Kulothunga Chola I and what is even more importance is that in all their grants and inscriptions the kings succeeding Kulothunga I to the Chola throne always used 'Chola' as a continuous and constant suffix to their names.

Also one finds that some 'references' have been added in the Chalukya Chola apparently to attest the veracity of the name and title Chalukya Chola or Chalukya Chola Dynasty, but I have checked the concerned link and found nothing of that sort, kindly see for yourself:

Search in this book(for clarity) kindly see this link:

http://books.google.com/books?id=XNxiN5tzKOgC&q=Chalukya+Chola Page 279 ... II then defeated the Chola, ... Page 374 ... Chola II. Shortly after he had repulsed them the feudatory ... Page 394 CHAPTER XIII South India From the close of the 3rd cent. AD (p. 139) the history of South India remains very obscure until about ... Page 395 ... Chola country, and his dominions extended from the Krishna to the ... Page 398 The Chola chief ... more » Page 399 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 403 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 405 ... undid his life's work, and probably died in 953 AD The history of the Cholas during the next 32 years is somewhat obscure. The Chola king Sundara Chola ... Page 406 He was a great conqueror and laid the foundation of the mighty Chola empire. He also made excellent arrangement for the administration of his vast dominions ... Page 408 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 409 Sorry, this page's content is restricted. Page 410 It thus not only comprised the whole of Mysore but even some borderlands to the north. This brought him into conflict with the Western Chalukya emperors ... Page Sorry, this page's content is restricted. « less

In any case with not just these but even more discrepancies in the Chola article, which I will discuss later, what emerges clearly is that in its present form even, the Chola Dynasty article does not deserve FA status. Can you guide me where one can voice his or her opinion and vote for or against granting of FA status to such articles. I would like to register my vote against grant of FA status to this dubious article.

Thank you.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Remove  lack of citations in many places, and also subjective opinions/observations need direct referencing and attribution, per exampels above.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * update - I'll be checking in regularly. Because there is a serious attempt to add references, I will be helping with formatting fixes etc. (It would have been pointless to fix them if the refs weren't there). It seems as though there is a good chance of fixing the article.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Much improved. Another look later perhaps.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 07:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep User:Nmadhubala has added citations to a large number of unreferenced statements. I notice that Blnguyen (the above commenter) has removed some subjective statements. A critical reviewer like Blnguyen is well-suited to identify and remove such statements. 2 (c) issues have been mostly resolved. I plan to do a round of copyediting in a couple of days from now. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not a past contributor to this article, I just stepped in to save the FA status, so I'm not entirely sure if I could vote or not! As Sundar has mentioned above, I've added added as many citations as I possibly could, as well as addressed the issues with ref style. I do believe (1c) and (2c) are satisfied, and I don't think (1e) is an issue anymore. If there are any specific concerns, please list them here. I agree (2a) could be an issue, and I hope User:Sundar and User:Blnguyen would help out with it. --Madhu (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see significant problems with the sourcing, though this subject is far from my field of expertise so I can't fully judge the sources themselves or say much about issues such as comprehensiveness. I should also note that Nmadhubala in particular seems to have done a sterling job, for which many thanks indeed.  This is on the face of it a textbook example of how the FAR process should work.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.