Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted 16:33, 24 May 2008.

[edit] Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this topic discusses an important period in the development of Kannada literature. The article has been peer reviewed by User:Ruhrfisch here[1], thoroughly copy edited by User:Michael Devore and User:Risker. Image issues have been resolved with User:Elcobbola. Please provide constructive feedback. I believe the article deserves a FA status for its comprahensive content, citations and attention to historical detail. Self-Nominator: User:Dineshkannambadi, thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I have added two more images. I am waiting for clearence of few more from user:Elcobbola.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The images currently in the article look fine. Please note there is no FA requirement for "even distribution" or, for that matter, any images at all. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Fantastic job, Dinesh. I wasn't aware of the extent of influence Kannada had on Vijayanagara (or vice versa), whose kings I (wrongly) believed mainly patronized Telugu literature. Well written and well referenced. The subject is complex for those with no previous background, but the quality of the prose keeps you involved through out. AreJay (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • 1) How can you not know the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash? (In the lead and lord knows where else).
    • 2) The prose? Here are a few doozies: "refers to the body of literature composed during the 14th through 16th centuries ..." (The first sentence of the lead).
    • 3) More prose? "The Vijayanagara empire was established in 1336 by Harihara I and his brother Bukka Raya I; it lasted until 1646. However, its power declined after a major military defeat in 1565 by the Deccan sultanates." (Second and third sentences in the lead). (The 1646 part should be subordinated to the second sentence: "Although it lasted until 1646, its power ..."
    • 4) Logic and cohesion problems: "The empire is named after its capital city Vijayanagara, whose impressive ruins surround modern Hampi, now a World Heritage Site in Karnataka." (Fourth sentence of the lead). New names should be introduced with references to what has already been mentioned, not to yet newer names (Hampi) and distracting asides about World Heritage Sites.
    • 5) Prose, logic problems: "Kannada literature during this period mainly consisted of writings relating to the socio–religious developments of the Veerashaiva and Vaishnava faiths, and to a lesser extent that of Jainism." (Fifth sentence of the lead). (grammar) "socio-religious" is a compound adjective, not a disjunction. (logic) If something consists "mainly" of A, what is left is not "lesser extent."
    • 6) Logic/cohesion problems: "As in the previous centuries, writing on secular topics remained popular." (Sixth sentence of the lead). "As in the previous centuries ...?" You didn't tell us anything about secular writing in the previous centuries.
    • Solution: Withdraw. Revise. Resubmit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • DK Reply
        • 1) I see only ndashes.
        • 2) What is wrong with it? If you have an issue with composed, it was written earlier and can be changed back
        • 3) Done
        • 4) I dont see what is distracting about it.
        • 5) Removed "mainly".
        • 6) Done. corrected it. Simply stated now without reference to previous centuries.
      • Solution: Continue with your suggestions, ideas right here. Risker has agreed to continue to look into cpedit issues. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1) You should have only hyphens. "socio-political," "saint-poet," and "best-known" are a compound words, they are very different from "US–China trade talks," which is a disjunction (see WP:MOS). Besides "best-known" shouldn't be hyphenated at all: contrast "the best known of the Sangama dynasty rulers" with "the best-known Sangama dynasty ruler."
2) Not sure where to begin. a) It is better to simply say "composed during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries." b) If you are going to use "through" (i.e. up to and including)—which is an American English term and you seem to be writing in British/Indian English— it should be "during the period (lasting from the) 14th through the 16th century," where the words in parentheses are understood; but, I can't see how it would be "centuries." c) But the bigger problem is that "Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire" is about the "Kannada literature" and the "Vijayanagara Empire" (the time period is secondary). The sentence should really say something along the lines of: "Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire refers to the body of literature composed in the Kannada language of South India during the ascendancy of the Vijayanagar Empire which lasted from the 14th through the 16th century."
4) Please ask someone else. This is all the time I have. Good luck. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • DK Reply
      • 1) As far as I know and Risker has confirmed, we need to be consistant in what we use. I will leave this to Risker and Michael to confirm.
      • 2a-b)It was "14th through 16th century" earlier, before another user copyedited it to the current state. So you see, each reviewer sees it his/her own way and that puts me in a difficult spot.
      • 2c)Done. Copied your sentence.
      • 4) Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: The rules for hyphenating compound words are flexible, and the use of a hyphen is often a stylistic choice. Another editor recently stated to me that British English makes more frequent use of hyphens with compound words than American English; this detail may influence the primary authors' decision to use a hyphen with certain compound words. In any case, the assertion here that the hyphen is incorrect for best-known in the article's context is not fully supported by scholarly works. For a few examples of Google online books with preview which employ a similar context and wording, and which use the hyphen, see [2], [3], [4], or [5].
It seems clear that reader interpretation of "the best known of the Sangama dynasty rulers" allows "best known" to be considered a compound word suitable for hyphenation at the author's option. Assume, as a frivolous example, that instead of notability one was referring to the intelligence of King Deva Raya II. One could substitute the single adjective smartest for best-known without further ado, further suggesting that in the article's current context best-known is acting as a single compound word.
I would, of course, defer in this opinion to someone who can validate their status as a professional copyeditor, and who can provide factual evidence to support the assertion that a hyphen is always incorrect for best-known in the article's context as currently employed. I make no claim to the exalted status of professional, but in turn I do not automatically assume it present if claimed by another. It is, however, patently true that the overall use of hyphens in compound words should be consistent within the article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Michael.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Michael Devore: I don't have any reference works with me right now, but the way I remember my namesake's Modern English Usage (a little dated now, but very English) talking about hyphens (in the case of a noun qualified adjectivally by another or a participle ("known") qualified by an adverb ("best")) is that one simply listened to speech: the compound form (with hyphen) has only one accent and on the first word, whereas in the un-hyphenated form, there are two accents with the second predominating. Since most people say, "He is the best-known climber" with accent only on "best," but "His is the best known of the four climbers," with accent on "known" predominating, the first is hyphenated, while the second (in which "best" is the superlative form of "well") is not. Not sure why "the best-known of" is showing up in the Google book search. People do make mistakes. Alternatively, as you suggest, it may not be a hard and fast rule. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Well, Michael Devore might have a point. There seems to be a 15% rule. :) If you do a Google Books "Advanced Search" for the exact phrase "the best-known of" in books whose titles begin with "Cambridge History ..." (an effort to fish out British usage) you get 12 hyphenated returns out of a total of 85 (approx. 14%). Similarly, the same search in books whose titles begin with "Oxford History ..." produces 5 hyphenated returns out of a total of 33 (15%). The same search for book title "Encyclopaedia Britannica" yields 1 hyphenated return out of a total of 27. Since Encyclopaedia Britannica (for the last 50 years) has been associated with the University of Chicago and is published in the US, it probably hyphenates less often. :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC) PPS I think the 15% are errors. Doesn't make any sense in speech. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Fifteen percent, assuming your figures match real-world usage, is a statistically significant figure for error in publications which are far more carefully copyedited than quality Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia typographical errors for its "best work" of already-passed Featured Articles seem to run somewhat higher; the percentage of found typographical errors for FAs can go to roughly 20% in my ongoing work there.
I therefore disagree with your interpretation of mere error in all of the works, including that in the much vaunted Encyclopedia Britannica which, it is my understanding, is comprehensively copyedited and proofed to achieve much better than a 4% failure rate. My interpretation of the evidence is that I have adequately demonstrated the hyphen is acceptable in the context it was used. As with a great many constructs in our damnably elastic English language, it is also in the minority of usage. Your figures clearly illustrate that minority status. Detailed research doubtless would lend additional support to one position over the other, but such an effort is too tedious to contemplate.
Still, were minority styles not acceptable in FAs, we would not see the perennial debates concerning unspaced em dashes and spaced en dashes for interruption, or on whether citations must follow or can precede punctuation. With that in mind, drawing the conclusion that the hyphen is "not making any sense" does not necessarily follow the evidence in my estimation.
However, if a certain style causes stress or discomfort to one or more editors, and everyone else is indifferent, then it seems a minor thing to change. I would recommend Dineshkannambadi remove the hyphen where you suggest unless he or another editor objects to the article modification. Alternatively, a slight tweak to the wording could remove the object of contention. I am not a primary author and the article does not follow my writing style (such as it is), so I will leave the hyphen decision to others better qualified to determine the best course of action here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC).
DK Reply I have requested Risker, for his/her opinion, since he/she prefered to add those hyphens. If there is no issue with removing them, I will galdly do so where required.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Dinesh, this whole issue about hyphens, seems to stem from a bad case of what can only be called pretentious pedantry. Please dont lose too much sleep over it. I dont see the necessity for any changes. Sarvagnya 18:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies to all for the delay in responding; real life interferes at the most inopportune moments, and I've just been getting online for very short bursts the last two days. I've reviewed the commentary above, and do note that there may have been a few &ndashes where there should have been hyphens; perhaps a misreading of the MoS on my part. As to the use of hyphens in some compound phrases, there are sometimes very good reasons for those hyphens. Compare the following:
"This is the best-known example of precambrian art."
"This is the best known example of precambrian art."
The first sentence describes the relative fame of the art piece; the second describes its quality in comparison with similar known examples. The presence or absence of the hyphen changes the meaning of the sentence. English is a living language, and there are multiple "styles" in common usage; the key on Wikipedia is to remain constant throughout a specific article. As noted, I will run through the article once again to ensure that consistency. Thanks to indopug for checking the &ndashes. Risker (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Endash issue now appears to be resolved in accordance with WP:MOSDASH. Of note, endashes are properly used between two dates, (eg., 1509–1512) and between page numbers (e.g., pp. 218–220), according to MoS. I've run through the article twice now to capture all of these, and I think I've been successful. Risker (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply Thank you Risker. I think this issue is now resolved.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think I've fixed all the cases where endashes were incorrectly used instead of hyphens [6]. For cases such as "best–known of the many...", I've removed the hyphen between "best" and "known" (per Fowler&fowler above). indopug (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Thanks Indopug Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - All of the sources that I'm familiar with look good. I'm not really that knowledgeable about Indian publishing firms, so I can't judge their reliability that well, sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I understand. All authors and publishing houses are however reliable.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
To Risker: Your example is a little different from the problem at hand. The "best" in your first example is an adverb qualifying "known" (and the "best" is a superlative form of "well"); however, the "best" in the second is an adjective qualifying "known example" (and the "best" is the superlative of "good"). In our case, both "best"'s are adverbs. Of course, Fowler's speech test still applies to your example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as copy editor. Interesting, scholarly and encyclopedic subject, well handled in a logical and systematic way in a summary manner. There are multiple child articles related to this topic, to permit readers to find out more about the specific authors, philosophies, locales, and kingdoms. Risker (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Well-written, exhaustive article. Some comments though - maybe I'm nitpicking, but here are my comments anyway:
    • 1)"..and Hari Bhaktisara, a spontaneous writing on devotion in shatpadi metre. The latter writing, which is on niti (morals), bhakti (devotion) and vairagya (renunciation), continues to be a popular standard for children" - I don't think I understand this. What is a "popular standard for children"?
    • 2)"The former was based on a 7th century Tamil work.." - Can you perhaps mention the work or the author in the footnotes?
    • 3)WP:APT and WP:AWT? "..whose impressive ruins surround modern Hampi"; "..used it to the greatest effect"; "..found immense popularity"; "This multi-linguality was perhaps a lingering legacy of the glamorous Vijayanagara literary culture.."; "So vast is this body of literature that much of it still needs to be studied.". There are quite a few examples throughout the article. Are you quoting from the cited sources, maybe?
    • 4)Red link for alankara may not look too good in a FA. --Madhu (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
DK Reply I will look into your concerns today and answer point by point.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 1)Haribhaktisara is a standard book of learning for children. Added that information into the article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 2)The Tamil work is said to be by Nanasambandar. Added to inline note.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 3)I have removed some peacock terms. Yes, the source does use the term "glamorous" but I have changed it to "cosmopolitan". Regarding So vast is this body of literature..., that is what the source says.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 4)Removed red link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like all concerns have been addressed, thanks. Good luck with the FAC! --Madhu (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Very well written, comprehensive and well-sourced from reliable sources. Good summary style article, with more informative multiple child articles for all the sections.
Couple of comments.
This was the age of the shatpadi metre – Is the age/period referred by This is the entire period of Vijayanagara Empire?
Not sure if Nrisimhastava is the right name. Probably, it should it be Narisimhastava ?

Good job overall, and meets the criteria. - KNM Talk 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The Shatpadi metre tradition reached a peak like never before during the entire Vijayanagara era and remained popular even after the decline of the empire. Poets variously used the 6 types of Shatpadi's very effectively depending on what they wrote. I corrected the spelling. Good catch.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.