Talk:Bahubali/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge discussion

I disagree. Bahubali is also a word which is used for a goon with a power (mostly a politician in north India). Hence I believe it should not be merged. It will malign the image of Lord Bahubali Panchawatkar (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Gomateshwara is only another name for Bahubali and a less common one, it should be merged here, only causes confusion, unless separate Bahubali statue, Shravanabelagola article be created instead! Thanks--Ekabhishek^talk 04:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gomateshwara and Bahubali are indeed one in the same person. Perhaps a page should be made for the Saint, and one for the Statues (especially the one at Shravanabelagola.) Instantbro896 (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup

This page honestly needs a clean up. Copy pasta galore. I can see "[edit]" in the raw text, as well as a foreign language that I'm guessing is Hindi. Seriously, anybody who has good access to the Hindi Wikipedia or whatever (sorry, I'm preassuming) can you please either translate or interchange it back to English and somebody who knows what this article is about, could fix it up. 78.145.30.60 (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wrapped in vines?

What is the symbolism, if any, of the vines that wrap artistically around the statue's arms and legs?

I thought that Gommateshvara was the god or avatar or holy man and Bahubali was the location? --Monado (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Check the page now, for answers. Nimit (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

GA

I've placed him under "religious figures" at Wikipedia:Good articles/Philosophy and religion. Check you don't prefer a different subcategory. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Adam Cuerden -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 00:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

However, since the article is about a Jain God, I guess "Divinities and protohistoric figures" will be a better category. Please consider. Thanks again -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 00:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The weight of the statue

apparently statue weights 400 - 600 tons

please to be compared with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_monoliths_in_the_world

Was the statue transported to the place or just carved out from a natural rock formation ???

-- It is carved "In-place" in a natural rock 199.116.168.53 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bahubali/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with the simple issues first:

Images

File:भरत-बाहुबली युद्ध.jpg could be problematic in theory. The photo is out of copyright, and I suspect India's generous freedom of panorama would cover it, but I'd DEFINITELY have that one checked over and debated before going to FAC, as otherwise the image check there could be difficult.

File:Karkala gomateshwara.jpg would be better replaced with an image that doesn't have the distracting pole in front of it; there's no reason every statue has to be depicted from the front. This is a minor issue in some ways, but image choice does help make your article look more professional.

Everything else passes without a qualm. Weak pass

Stable

Check. ✓ Pass

References/Verifiable

Looks decently sourced. One reference is cited, but not used:

Sangave, Vilas Adinath (2001), Facets of Jainology: Selected Research Papers on Jain Society, Religion, and Culture, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, ISBN 978-81-7154-839-2

It should probably be deleted. If it is used, please make sure you cite the facts from it.

 Minor work needed

Neutral/Broadness/Clearly written

This is definitely written from a Jain perspective, but that's probably justified. Are there other perspectives of note? E.g. have Hindu scholars talked about him? If so, that needs dealt with.

There are a few minor issues with the writing:

From the lead: "After his year of meditation, Bahubali attained omniscience (Kevala Jnana)." - It feels a little odd to casually say he attained omniscience in the lead to an article; one could easily fix this with a minor rewrite, though, to make it clear we're still using Jain holy texts. How about:

“ After this year of meditation, Bahubali is said to have attained omniscience (Kevala Jnana). ”

That said, do NOT let me get away with any suggestions not being enforced on any other religion. My unfamiliarity with Jainism should not result in its claims being treated differently than, say, Christian claims about holy men would be.

The section "Legends" might run into problems if you're taking this to FA, but given it's entitled "Legends", I think we can accept that it's been contextualised.

The section "Statues" could probably use a transition from the list of statues to the discussion of each statue. It's not immediately clear that the same statures are being discussed. Either incorporating the facts in the list to the descriptions or just stating that the next part will be looking at them in order would help.

The section "Artipuras" is confusing. It has different dimensions than the 13-foot statue being excavated that was discussed previously; it has almost no detail, unlike every other statue, and it needs expansion.

The section "Idols" needs an introductory sentence or two before the gallery.

"In literature" is too short, and needs expanded.

This isn't a bad start. A little work and this will pass easily. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

 Needs work: Let's sort this!

Improvements

@Adam Cuerden: Thank you for reviewing. I have tried to fix some of the issues raised by you. —Nimit (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Right. Looks like it's just introducing the idols section and expanding the literary one. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess it's ready Adam Cuerden, please have a look. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 08:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this passes now. "Pictured below are some of the images depiciting Bahubali that are located at various places in India" and "These statues will be briefly discussed in order now." are a bit blunt of statements; poke at them a bit more for tone before going to FAC, but this has reached the level of passing. Great work! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)