Talk:Brihadisvara Temple, Gangaikonda Cholapuram/GA1

The following discussion 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.

---

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Johnbod (talk · contribs) 17:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• A reasonable article on this very important temple, but the coverage of the architecture, though better than most temple articles, does not really reach GA standard. The different parts of the temple are named, measurements are given, with the subjects of some images. Architectural analsis is restricted to the "Sri-vimana " section, where it is very hard to follow, and pretty vague, eg: "The upper levels are rhythmic shrinking repetition of the lower level square-circle-oblong artwork. The symmetry principles are dutifully embedded in, but the rate of shrinking is not linear. The non-linearity follows a planned curve, giving it a parabolic form. The griva is resonant with the cardinal directions, and like the Thanjavur Temple, Nandi bulls sit on its top corners." Explanation and linking of architectural terms is pretty erratic, and eg "cameos" is surely mis-used. The article needs to be comprehensible to non-Indian readers, eg: "There is a hara over the prastara." That won't be. Neither mandapa of the main temple is square at all - based on squares maybe. There is no comment on the stylistic aspects of the sculptures.

• Give me a few days to work on the links. - MSW

On square plan, please see Pierre Pichard 1994 publication, Memoires Archaeologiques and of Nagaswamy's 1970 one. There are plan drawings under Maps section of UNESCO, but we cannot use these since it is neither creative commons nor in public domain to the best of my knowledge. I agree, we do need to explain this better, even if helpful drawings are not available. - MSW

It is rightly said several times that the vimana is curved, unlike Thanjavur, but nowhere that its curve is concave, so unlike the convex curve of northern shikharas (I now see the version before MSW's recent expansion did at least say it was concave). The vimana here therefore looks forward in both size and shape to the concave curves of the very large gopurams of the future, a key aspect of its importance in architectural history. I'm sure the sources available to MSW have ample coverage for a better explanation.

• Johnbod: do you have a scholarly source in mind for your "vimana here therefore looks forward in both size and shape to the concave curves of the very large gopurams of the future"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Harle, 314-316. But there must be much more in the sources listed in refs. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Checked source. Added. - MSW

• Personally, I'd be inclined to move the rather long "location" section nearer the bottom.

• Given there are two temples with the same name, I suggest we keep it upfront. This location information makes some of the location-related discussion in later section easier to understand. - MSW

The location is clear from the first sentence, not to mention the title. The first lead para also mentions the other temple, so I don't see this. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

By "location-related discussion", I mean more than the name of the village/town. - MSW

• Generally, it needs a careful read-through and touching up. A sample of small points:
  • "The structural elements resemble the big temple in Thanjavur." (Indeed, and this could be expanded upon). This links to the town, already linked above, but we have an article on the "big temple" itself, also already linked to above. If a link is going to be repeated (which I don't mind), it should be that one.

• Fixed. - MSW

• • "He established Gangaikonda Cholapuram as his capital from the medieval Chola capital of Thanjavur, which went on to be the capital for the next 250 years" - I was confused as to which "went on" here (in fact GC). Also "medieval", always a word best avoided in India imo, is potentially confusing - some older systems only start "medieval India" at about 1,000, the preceding period being "classical".

• Indeed. Fixed. - MSW

• • "According to Vasanthi, the Pandyas who defeated the Cholas during the later part of 13th century "may have raged the city to ground" to avenge their previous defeats." - typo "raged" for "razed"?

• Fixed. - MSW

• • "Aimilar correlation is derived ..." Obvious typo, but these should have been cleared before nominating.

• Fixed. - MSW

I'm sure it will get there, but a bit more work is needed. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comment

• The standalone "Gallery" section is completely redundant. It consists 100% pictures of sculptures, and we already have a gallery called "Gangaikondacholapuram temple sculpture" under the "Sculpture" section. If readers want to see more, they can go to Commons. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with that, but a 1 or 2-row mini-gallery after the scilpture secion might be better. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop: I am generally not a fan of big galleries that make articles look like photo album, but open to exceptions. This article is one of those exceptional cases. Most of the images in the article's gallery are not 'pretty pictures' or 'repetition', but quite significant as they come from different traditions of Hinduism or legends from Hindu texts. Perhaps we should expand on the caption to better explain what makes each of those images significant. Would that address your concern? I am fine with the format changes that Johnbod suggests. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Ms Sarah Welch. Right now the gallery at least looks indiscriminate to the untrained eye. If it isn't, its placement, title and captions should elaborate on some theme. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, people rarely complain about reasonable galleries when the captions explain the significance of each image. I'd go to a 200px width to allow more space. Johnbod (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Ssriram mt: I was about to request you to reconsider this nom. But since it is already in process, let us do some cleaning, better explanation, and content addition as requested to improve the article further. @Johnbod: some of the terms you mention would probably be better addressed if we finish the glossary section in Hindu temple architecture article we discussed a while ago. I will work on this over the next few days. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspending the nom for additions might be a good idea. I'd get the content right before calling in GOCE. Johnbod (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ssriram mt: I would suggest reconsidering it and a voluntary withdraw. But if you wish to continue with the GA process, I will try to help wherever I can. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of the S.R. Balasubrahmanyam source

• In the nominated article, the S.R. Balasubrahmanyam source is repeatedly cited throughout the article no less than 16 times, and yet the page numbers cited are the same pages roughly 240-249. That the editor could not be bothered to further delineate which page number goes with which reference note is troubling. Wikipedia's content guidelines for a citation's placement WP:INTEGRITY state that "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to check that the material is sourced; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." These guidelines leave the final decision on the distance "between material and its source" in the hands of "editorial judgment", advising that editors "exercise caution when rearranging or inserting material to ensure that text–source relationships are maintained." I am beginning to go over the source now and will try to better align page numbers with the appropriate cites.
  • The first citation "Except for this temple, the old capital and its other major Chola-era, Hindu temples have been destroyed." This information is not to be found on pages 241-245 of the source.

• Second source added. The text and footnote of orig source mentions destruction; the summary is rephrased. - MSW

• • The second citation "The temple is also referred to in texts as Gangaikonda Cholapuram Temple, Gangaikondacholeeswaram Temple or Gagaikonda-solapuram Temple." is located on page 240.

• There are three cites there, after a bunch of sentences. You suggestion is an improvement. Added. - MSW

• • The third citation "As well as its notability for having been built by Rajenda I, the temple is also noteworthy for its numerous inscriptions, although none of them are his." is not to be found on pages 243-249, but rather, on Page 241. It mentions "There is no record of Rajendra I himself of this transaction (on the walls of this temple or elsewhere."

• There are two cites there. I find support in the first source, which you did not acknowledge. Balasubrahmanyam is the second source, after many sentences in that para: which it supports. Indeed 241 also supports what you note. Added. - MSW

• • The text "The tower is capped with a stupi, whose inscription was once gold coated; the gold is long gone." should cite page 245 as well. The source text says: "It is said to bear an inscriptional reference to Nallakka-tola Udaiyar, a poligar of Udaiyarpalayam; he might have gifted a new stupi or re-gilded the original."

• The article cites pp=243-247. - MSW

• • The text "The visible upapitham measures 103.63 m (340.0 ft) long by 30.48 m (100.0 ft) with an east-west axis"[13] is mis-referenced as Roma Chatterjee, ed. (2016). "India Art and Architecture". This reference is actually in the Balasubrahmanyam source, page 243.

• The article cites pp=241-249. Clarified. - MSW

• • The text "On the visible part, the garbha griha is 30.48 m (100.0 ft) long, the Maha Mandapa is 53.34 m (175.0 ft) long, and the Ardha Mandapa is 19.81 m (65.0 ft) with a square neck between the two.[12] is a word for word copy of the original text on page 243, insufficiently paraphrased.

• In the version I have, I don't the see the alleged 'word for word' copy of the original text on page 243! For example, the 19.81 m appears once as follows: "The ardhamandapa is shaped like a constricted square neck between the two, of side 19.81 ms (65')." How is that word for word copy? - MSW

Comparison of texts

Text as it appears in the Wikipedia article	Text as it appears in the Source Material
"On the visible part, the garbhagriha is 30.48 m (100.0 ft) long, the mahamandapa is 53.34 m (175.0 ft) long, and the ardhamandapa is 19.81 m (65.0 ft) with a square neck between the two."	"The garbhagriha and mahamandapa are also of the same width, and respectively 30.48 ms (100') and 53.34 ms (175') long. The ardhamandapa is shaped like a constricted square neck between the two, of side 19.81 ms (65')."

This may not be a word-for-word copying, but the phrasing of the material is identical. "Constricted square neck" is too unique of a description. It's absurd to think that the Wikipedia author thought to themselves "A good paraphrase of 'constricted square neck' would be 'square neck.'" The structure of the sentence's main creatively thought-up descriptor for the architecture of the temple (i.e., constricted square neck) remains identical to the source. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 15:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Constricted square neck = Narrowed square neck = square neck that is narrower than the parts it joins. What is "too unique" or "unique" about it? Sorry I don't understand, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• • The text "The tower rises as a vertical square structure to a height of 10.67 m (35.0 ft) above the adhisthanam." is an insufficiently paraphrased copy of the original text: "The garbhagriha walls rise to a height of 10.67ms (35') over the adhishthanam"
  • The text "It has two horizontal bands with a massive cornice wrapped around it. Each band has five individual bays on the south, west and east sides with pilasters between the bays. The end bays are squares, the other three are oblong with the center bay of each set of five being the widest." is an insufficiently paraphased copy of the original text on page 244.
  • The text "On each side are cameos on the wall with four horizontal rows of friezes. These narrate Hindu legends and Puranic mythologies from the Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakta traditions." The struckout text is not in the original, on page 245.

• Legends about Durga etc is Shakta tradition, Vishnu etc is Vaishnava tradition, etc. This is basic Hinduism. We can't be complaining about too close paraphrasing and restatement with equivalent terms as "not found in the original". Added a second source. - MSW

• • The text The cornices have floral motifs and decorative kudus. Incorporated in the features are mythical creatures in the form of yali. There is a hara over the prastara.[5] is insufficiently paraphrased from the original on page 245.

• Done. - MSW

• • The text: "The Sri-vimana has nine storeys (talas) including the ground level storey, in contrast to the thirteen at Thanjavur. The upper levels are rhythmic shrinking repetition of the lower level square-circle-oblong artwork. The symmetry principles are dutifully embedded in, but the rate of shrinking is not linear. The non-linearity follows a planned curve, giving it a parabolic form. The griva is resonant with the cardinal directions, and like the Thanjavur Temple, Nandi bulls sit on its top corners. Above the griva is the kirtimukhas and then comes the sikhara crown draped with a symmetrical lotus petal design." is insufficiently paraphrased from the source text.

• Done. - MSW

• • The text "Rajendra I built the entire capital with several temples using plans and infrastructure recommended in Tamil Vastu and Agama Sastra texts.[12] is from page 242, and is perfectly paraphrased.

• Thanks. - MSW

 Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

References

• @Spintendo: Thanks for these comments. I am wondering if we are looking at two editions or something, because some of your comments do not make sense given the version I have. For example, you allege "word for word copy" in one case, when I don't see it. Please explain. I am delighted that you are able to verify most of what you checked, and the issue you see is "insufficient paraphrasing". But let us first deal with the 'word for word copy' issue you see and I am unable to verify, because the two issues may be related. I will go through your comments and the entire article line by line in the coming days? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Maintenance note: In my checks so far, I have not found 'copy-paste' or 'plagiarism'. I will continue my checks and try to reword where necessary and possible. Yet, please note that simple factual statements cannot be rephrased too much, nor do we need to, without making the prose cumbersome and unclear to the reader. A statement such as "John Smith was born in 1256 CE" or "Gangaikonda was the capital of the Cholas" or "The platform measures 100 m (328 ft) in length" or "the sky is blue" are simple facts, with little creative content. On the other hand, creative work that includes an author's original thought does need careful rewording (no copying, no close paraphrasing). The example where Spintendo writes "this is perfectly paraphrased" is such a 'true creative work' case, and I am glad Spintendo agrees that one case was done right! All this is covered in WP:FACTS, WP:PLAG and other community accepted content guidelines of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I have posted the two texts side by side above. As you can see, the text from the Wikipedia article copies the phrased structure of the source statement. The order in which the three are described is identical; the description of it shaped as a "constricted square neck" is identical. Texts taken from sourced materials and used somewhere else ought to contain at least a residue of orginality in their transcription, and not so-close resemble the source's material. Whichever editor wrote the Wikipedia text in the article took sentences that Balasubrahmanyam formulated for his book — using his own ideas on how to describe the dimensions of the temple to readers of his book — and they presented those ideas as their own. That is not acceptable. How it needs to be rewritten is as follows: ""According to Dr. Balasubrahmanyam "The garbhagriha and mahamandapa are also of the same width, and respectively 30.48 ms (100') and 53.34 ms (175') long." Dr. Balasubrahmanyam's observations of these dimensions were additionally notable in how "the ardhamandapa is shaped like a constricted square neck between the two." Spintendo ᔦᔭ 16:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Spintendo: Thanks for admitting it is not "word for word" copy! Please be careful before casting aspersions of that nature. In general, yes rephrasing is needed. But there are exceptions, as I explained above and our WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAG clearly explain those cases. In-text attributions help. There is no need rephrase "the sky is blue" etc kind of non-creative statements by any author. I find your proposed language "According to Dr. Balasubrahmanyam "The garbhagriha and mahamandapa are also of the same width.... etc" cumbersome, confusing. You could soon be suggesting, "Dr. XYZ's observations were additionally notable in how the sky is blue." Sorry, unnecessary. That is not consistent with our paraphrasing guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Status query

What is the current status of this nomination and review? Nominator Ssriram mt has yet to post anything on this review page since it was opened over a month ago, though they did make a few edits to the article during December. Ms Sarah Welch has taken point on the review and has been responsive. There was talk about suspending the review a month ago by reviewer Johnbod, but the nomination isn't on hold, so it seems to be in limbo. If there are any remaining questions about close paraphrasing, we could always ask Nikkimaria to check the article; I always go to her when there are questions at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My first 2 points (the most important) still stand, I think. Johnbod (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy to help address specific issues if they are offered as a part of helping improve the article. But my response will likely be slow, given other RL priorities. Perhaps, the nominator has more time and could respond faster? I am okay if the nominator withdraws it, or the reviewer fails it for now. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies - caught up in some personal commitments. I see most of the review points are addressed. Please let me know specific texts needing rephrasing, i can work on closing it out.Ssriram mt (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, Ms Sarah Welch has been blocked indefinitely for socking, and Ssriram mt, while offering to work on closing it out, hasn't addressed your first major point, at least, which was that the architecture coverage was not adequate for a GA. It is up to you what to do, but this has been open for over two months and two weeks now, and there hasn't been anything done since early January (and then not much). BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Time to close it as fail, I think. I'm afraid I have no idea how to do that. One day I may work on it myself. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod, the instructions on how to do that are at WP:GANI#Failing. Or, if you'd rather, I can do the close as fail for you. Just let me know here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Done that, I hope correctly. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It worked, Johnbod, but the topic field was wrong, so I've fixed it. Topic does not mean the article title, but one of the GA topic areas. The easiest thing to do is just copy the subtopic field from the GA nominee template into FailedGA's topic field: if topic and subtopic are not the same (which they were in this case: "Art and Architecture"), the template knows to display the topic rather than the subtopic. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod and BlueMoonset: Would you explain the "first major point" about the architecture coverage further? While I am not re-nominating this failed GA, in the interest of improving the article further, any explanation with quote/source would help. Alternatively, maybe you can point to an article that illustrates a GA-quality architecture coverage? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

My comments were quite long, and I thought clear. I can't offhand point to an Indian temple "article that illustrates a GA-quality architecture coverage" but maybe I'll root around - not sure I'll find one frankly. The problems I mentioned here are rather typical. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Johnbod: It doesn't have to be an Indian temple article. It would be helpful if you can point to a non-Indian temple article, or any other religious building article, one you feel illustrates a GA-quality architecture coverage. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I must say I find "GA-quality" rather mysterious, it is so variable! Montacute House is excellent, in fact just about anything on architecture by Giano is. I would not expect so much, though of course Brihadisvara Temple is an extremely important building. I know architecture is difficult to write about, and impossible without good and detailed sources, and many of the sources on Indian temples are not that good. Architecture in the UK is much more fortunate in that respect. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

additional comments by Lingzhi

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2018 (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.