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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

Western Chalukya architecture

[edit]

previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)

This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Wikipedia, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?[reply]

The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital.[1] The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height.[1] The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.

I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?
As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.
This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC [1] Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit [2] is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Wikipedia is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:
"The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital.[1] Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls [1] and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar,[2] by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.
The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."
Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal
You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have ever encountered such distasteful behaviour againast another editor on a FAC before, as that exhibited to Dinesh by you. I am very surprised no one in authority has stepped in to rebuke you. Giano (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is my view [3]. It is impossible to edit with such hostility coming from you. I'll leave it to the FA director to decide what he wants to do with the page. Good evening. Giano (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Wikipedia as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 2

I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding so eloquently, Random Replicator.
You might disagree that the FA status is basically meaningless - You might disagree that FA status is similar to the carrot for you to chase - but are these matters of opinion or of fact?
The hard work, your hard work, is not valued by the worth of FA status.
Fowler has clearly show[n] that there are issues with the FA process.
--Kiyarrllston 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is it a fact, in that it is not meaningless to me. But you are most correct; there is weaknesses in this system.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely a well written article, however, I would have ideally like to have seen more information on the impact of WCa on the architectural styles of future Kannada dynasties. I know some mention of this is made in the "Evolution" section, but if additional information is available, I'd like to see that incorporated into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support My request was addressed...I really like the "Appreciation" section...I think it adds color to WCa and gives perspective to their accomplishments. Good job. AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to add this info anyway along with a section requested by Giano. Yes, their influence pervaded right into Hoysala, Kakatiya (from Andhra Pradesh) and even later Vijayanagara style, though the impact is mostly seen in the first two. But because the number of Hoysala monuments of Karnataka outnumber the Kakatiya monuments (in Andhra Pradesh) by a magnitute, most of the scholarly discussions pertain to Chalukya-Hoysala art forms. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support A nice page now with a good conclusion. Its a page for "grown ups" with a good attention span. It is never going to be over easy to follow because of the quantity of similar sounding (to western ears) and unfamiliar names and places. I have studied the page and made a few alterations but it will always be a page one has to read and think about, if one takes the time to do the then one will be a lot wiser. To simplify it would be tantamount to committing a crime so much information would be lost. When he has finished this Dinesh ought to consider writing An introduction to Western Chalukya architecture. He has done a great job here and should be congratulated. Giano (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To user:Giano_II and user:Dineshkannambadi: I notice that my emblematic example (up top), "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." has been changed to "This artificial source of light adds "mystery" to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." That's an improvement? How are the quotes supposed to help us? Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Will make the change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is the actual quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Regarding the "mystery" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, that "mystry" in your quote is theological usage, going back to late medieval English and obsolete now. It means "mystical significance" as I remember it. (I don't have OED/Webster's access right this minute, but I'll provide more info later.) Beautiful passage though—the kind of writing (late 19th century?) that no art historian today would be caught dead writing (sadly for art history). Notice too that the author uses "small oil lamp," not "source of artificial light," which in the early 21-century usually refers to electric light. You know guys (and I mean this collegially and not as a personal attack), you've made a hash of the paraphrasing. Why not serve up the entire quote? It is beautifully written. It evokes the ambiance in a way nothing in the entire article does. Maybe leave out the bit about "wrapt up in his religious fervor" (subst. with ...), but keep the rest of the quote in. It is very evocative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is OED: I. Theological uses. 1. Mystical presence or nature; mystical significance. in (also through) his mystery: in or by its mystical presence or nature. in (a) mystery: mystically, symbolically; with hidden or mystical significance. Obs. Examples: 1542 Plowman's Tale in Wks. G. Chaucer f. cxxvi, Hys fleshe and blode through hys mystrye Is there, in the forme of brede. 1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. cxviij, Whiche place..is to be vnderstande in a mistery [L. mystice]. a1616 R. FIELD Of Church (1628) III. App. 205 The crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament.
I wouldn't change the spelling of "mystry" and let the reader figure it out (if they desire) by looking up a dicitionary. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DK Reply Your comment is very unclear and vague. Nor sure what you mean by "Ridicuously". Not sure what you mean by "article of this size". Please clarify how many more distinct references you expect. There are more than 10 references, each one from a well known historian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Umm, how is the fact that there are only 10 "distinct" references "completely unacceptable" for an FA article? How many references are you expecting to see? There's actually 15 distinct references. And anyway, how does an article with, say, 21 references qualify for FA over an article wtih 20 references based solely on the # of references? Please elucidate upon your "ridiculously strong opposition". AreJay (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dineshkannambadi, I don't see a reason why this cannot be a FA. -- Naveen (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK Reply Sure I will look into it. Sometimes, the same reference holds good for multiple statements cited from the same page in the source material. So there may be nothing wrong as such. So I have to club citations, thats all. will do.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ a b c d Cousens (1926), p 23
  2. ^ Cousens (1926), p 21
More