Talk:Vimala Temple/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am tending to fail this because of poor prose, and lack of easy understanding.

Examples:

• In a departure from tradition Jagannath, a form of the god Vishnu/Krishna (Krishna is generally regarded as an avatar of Vishnu), is worshipped as the Bhairava, traditionally always a form of Shiva.

--Unclear meaning. Uninitiated reader cannot make out what is conveyed here.

Jagannath (a form of one god) is equated with Bhairava, a form of another god. How can we make it clearer? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Jagannath-Vishnu equated with Shiva, is interpreted to convey the oneness of God. -- except for readers well-acquainted with Hinduism, difficult to understand why this represent one-ness of god.

Two different deities are equated => oneness of God. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also, in this regard, Vimala is also considered as Lakshmi, the consort of Vishnu --- two "also"s.
• Indeed the whole second paragraph of "Religious significance" is confusing.

Which sentences need to be improved? Para 1 mentions the concept of Shakti Pitha and Bhairava.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Vimala is identified with the goddesses Katyayini, Durga, Bhairavi, Bhuvaneshvari and Ekanamsha (the elder sister of Krishna, but younger than Balabhadra) at various times. -- What is meant by various times?
• She is considered the shakti of Vishnu as well as Shiva in the climactic Durga Puja festivities. -- who is considered? The deity in Vimala temple? Or in general the Hindu Goddess? Also, do you mean the Durga Puja festivities in general or specific rituals in Puri?

Clarified about Puri. She => Vimala. Earlier sentence "Vimala is ..." so she in next means Vimala. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• She appears as Mahishasuramardini (Durga as slayer of the demon Mahishasura) or Vijayalakshmi (the warrior form of Lakshmi) in the New Delhi Konark stele -- what is "New Delhi Konark stele"?

"New Delhi Konark stele" is the name given to the Stele. More detail. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Oddiyana or Uddiyana (now clearly identified as Orissa) in the west is where lies the temple of Katyayini (identified with Vimala) and her consort Jagannath -- "in the west" of what?

Clarified association with directions. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In Shakti Peetha list" subsection is too technical, and confusing to some extent.

The section explains most of jargon used. Most of it is about in which list, Vimala temple is mentioned and how. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not read rest of the article. However, unfortunately, it does not seem to meet GA criteria. Will wait a few days for any comment from the nominator. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Continuing comments First, let me apologize for considering the text too difficult in the initial review! It is difficult, but not extremely so. I was sleepy during the first time I was reading the article, and many sentences appeared quite tough! A tired mind.

Anyway, I am continuing the review.

• "Vimala (Bimala) is worshipped as the presiding goddess of the Purushottama (Puri) Pitha. Jagannath, a form of the god Vishnu/Krishna (Krishna is generally regarded as an avatar of Vishnu), is worshipped as the Pitha's Bhairava, traditionally a form of Shiva. Jagannath-Vishnu equated with Shiva, is interpreted to convey the oneness of God."

Suggested version: (please modify as needed)

"Vimala (Bimala) is worshipped as the presiding goddess of the Purushottama (Puri) Pitha. Jagannath, a form of the god Vishnu/Krishna (Krishna is generally regarded as an avatar of Vishnu), is worshipped as the Pitha's Bhairava. This is a departure from the usual tradition of Bhairava being a form of Shiva. So, in this temple complex, Vishnu–one of the Hindu trinity–is equated with Shiva, another of the trinity; this is interpreted to convey the oneness of God."--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Adopted as suggested.

• "While the central icon of Vimala is sixth century CE, the present structure - based on its architecture - seems to built in the 9th century..."

the clause before the comma is missing some word -- "of" or "from" or something (such as, While the central icon of Vimala is from sixth century CE). endash to be used instead of hyphen.

• • Added/changed

• "It is said that Vimala was installed here, even before Jagannath in the central shrine". Where is it said?

• • Trying to locate the reference. It could be removed if agreed

• " King Narasimhadeva, who ruled between 1623-47, ended the meat and fish offerings of the goddess too, however the goddess is still offered meat and fish, but no wine."Is that "too" required? Also,if Narasimhadeva ended the practice in 1600s, was the practice revitalized again (since Vimala gets meat and fish at present, as it seems from the text)?

• • “Too” removed. But reference to exact year and by whom the practice was restarted is not known.

• "The niches and intervening recesses of the talajangha with khakhara mundis, simhavidalas (a lion-faced beast), Gajavidalas (a elephant-faced lion trampling a lion), jaliwork, scrollwork, sikshadana scene of saints and kirtimukha (a monster face) motifs, along with the figurines of eight Dikpalas (guardian gods of the directions) with their mounts and some goddesses." Not a sentence (verb missing).

• • Added

• "Parshvadevatas (attendant deities) are placed in the central niches of the bada on three sides...". I think bada should be in italics. So should be baranda three sentences later.
  • Done

• varada mudra -- needs explanation or wikilink.
  • Done with link to Mudra and also explained as "a favourable symbolic or ritual gesture”.

• "...Gaja-Simha, the lion - the goddess' vahana (mount or vehicle) - riding over an elephant..." endash.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Done

The continued comments have been addressed. Thanks for the review.--Nvvchar. 07:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Parshvadevatas (attendant deities) are placed in the central niches of the bada on three sides: the eight-armed Durga slaying Mahishasura on the south; the six-armed goddess Chamunda standing on Shiva, who lies on the ground on the west and an empty niche on the north, probably also having a goddess figure, which was stolen." Citation needed.

I've given a bit of a copyedit and clean to improve readability and understanding and have strengthened the intro. While some of the architectural detail is still a little difficult to follow, and some minor issues no doubt some will spot, I think it's close to GA now. I disagree with the restoral most of this. To the average English reader I think it looks like Hindu gobbledy-gook and irrelevant to learning about the temple. It is exceptionally difficult to understand. If I came across that independently I'd be put off wanting to read the article. Vimala should have its own article and most of that content not about the temple put in it. It strikes me out of place here and affects readability, even if a brief context is relevant.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC) ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Detailed discussion on Talk:Vimala_Temple#Removal_of_sentences_in_Religious_significance. Unlike places of worship of other faiths, where architecture is the focus, reliable sources also detail legends and mentions in scriptures, which does not generally apply other religions' shrines. Comprehensiveness can not be sacrificed to appease the average reader of Wikipedia. Vimala is not a distinct goddess. It is the name of the presiding icon/goddess. "In Shakti Pitha lists" which was removed only mentions the legend as well as mentions in sacred texts. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the architecture description remains difficult to follow. There are so many non-English words, and the reader has difficulty to construct a mental image during reading. But I don't know if this can be improved in any way.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Jargon has to be retained and can not be simplified further in these cases. Similar English descriptions can be given, e.g. a Parshvadevata can be called an attendant deity, but there are many associations with Parshvadevata, like they are on sanctum periphery often in the pradakshina patha, subordinate deities or forms of the central deity. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why I left it, its technically right, but still heavy reading. I tried to make it clearer by adding the meaning of some of the architectural terms in brackets which has improved it I think. Can't really see what else I can do without losing information.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• The mention of the temple as a Shakti Peetha ( and the variations of description) in different scriptures is ok and appropriate. But I think the whole detailed story of how Shakti Peethas came into being ( the Dakhsha yagna, and the body parts falling) seems unnecessary in this article.a whole paragraph has is used to tell the story. The story deserves one or two summary sentences. You can explain what are Shakti Peethas in the opening of this section, and then describe different scriptures describing this temple as one. The story of Daksha, Shiva, Parvati belongs to the Shakti Peetha article, and perhaps some other articles, but not in this temple article. Of course, appropriate wiki links should be provided so that interested readers can check out the whole background story.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The para is summary of the long Shakti Peetha legend. It is necessary to explain the relation between Sati's body part and the Shakti Pitha list as scriptures paras ahead relate the two. A non-Hindu will not otherwise understand the association. Also, without a short info about Daksha-yajna, one will not understand why was Sati's body cut. Cut a little. I am not sure how to reduce it further without losing the information. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "Religious significance" needs some elucidation. The paragraph is ok to understand up to "... this is interpreted to convey the oneness of God.". Tne next sentence sentences starts with, "In this regard...". In what regard? Oneness of God regard?

Clarified. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence of this paragraph says, "Vimala (Bimala) is worshipped as the presiding goddess of the Purushottama (Puri) Pitha". But the last sentence says,"Vimala is considered to be the guardian goddess of the temple complex, with Jagannath as the presiding god". I guess this apparent contradiction is due to different beliefs of the cults (Shakta versus Shaiva versus Vaishnava etc). But it appears quite confusing. You probably need to work on this paragraph to portray the difference of beliefs among the branches of Hinduism more easily.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Pitha is limited to the small Vimala shrine. The temple complex is all shrine in the Jagannath Temple. Is it clearer in the text now? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion

Despite the efforts by Redtigerxyz (and slight effort from me), I am doubtful if the article meets the GA criteria 1a (the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct), specifically the "clear" part.

The sections that I have my doubts on are—the whole "Architecture" section. This section uses loads of non-English words frequently. The problem is, I do not know how to avoid this. The description of architecture will inevitably involve the local language terms.

The next section is the first part of "religious significance" (above "in Shakti Peetha list"). Although I myself am able to understand the meaning, I do not know if it is clear enough. It takes me more than one reading to grasp the meaning.

So, I am unable to provide solution to the problems I found. Perhaps other reviewers may not find it it as big a problem, or, may provide solution, or, may accept the status quo. I have no problem in accepting the status quo and making this a GA, but I need second (or third) opinions before that.

Other than the above-mentioned issues, the article meets GA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can provide the second opinion. I have expanded quite some articles of temples built in Kalingan style. The architectural jargons may look complex for readers, but that is how even references are. I will list out my comments in a bit. 16:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion comments

Architecture section

• Deula style has the four components. The sentence "Deula style with four components:" can be modified to "Deula style that has four components namely".
• All the jargons are explained - OK.

Vimana

• the explanations within braces are varied. While in some parts, English is used and the vernacular names are put in braces, in other places it is viz. Can it be stream lined? ex. first part (pabhaga) and khakhara mundis (a type of niche)

standardized: jargon (explanation)

• "The Dikpalas and their consorts are seen " - it is the "The images of Dikpalas and their consorts are seen"

IMO, "images of" is redundant in case of Dikpalas as figurines mentioned in earlier sentence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Same with Parshvadevatas (images of)

Done.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can English words be used from the second mention - ex. "The lintel of the parshvadevata " to "The lintel of the attendant deities" , "The goddess Vimala is deified within the garbhagriha" to "The goddess Vimala is deified within the sanctum"

I like this suggestion.A really good one.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, we are sacrificing accuracy with the substitution. parshvadevata are loosely translated as attendant deities. They have other connotations. This is in line with white papers or scholarly books. However, I will try to loose some more jargon. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Her lower right is held in" or "Her lower right hand is held in".

Oops...--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "centre surrounded with apsaras" - apsara - meaning? same with Navagraha, dvarapala.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Jagamohana

• Needs rephrasing as there are too many unexplained jargons. Also some sentences like "one towards the sanctum (already discussed in vimana section)".

Most jargon is same as vimana. Not re-explained. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Natamandapa

• "The natamandapa is a pidha deula" - what is pidha deula?

Explained in jagamohana.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• all the terms like vimana, jagamohana, bada, shikara can be anglicized.

Anglicized many, but not vimana, jagamohana as references (even but with short descriptions of the temple) use them. Please suggest terms left that can be anglicized. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "sixteen forms of the Hindu Goddess, including the Mahavidyas" - aren't Mahavidyas part of the sixteen. Are there 26 images?

Mahavidyas are part of 16, that is why "including" is used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bhogamandapa

• "The bhogamandapa is a pidha deula" -?

Explained in jagamohana.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• "are installed in the niches on the western inner wall" - "installed" needs rewording.

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall

• The section is too detailed (are individual specifications needed for all images) and almost relies entirely on the Orissa temple magazine.

Architecture mostly covered in detailed only in this source. Other sources have very short description. Want to be comprehensive. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can an architectural image of the Deula side be added?

Done. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Also temple map, if available. Ssriram mt (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No temple map in any reference found. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Will fix and reply on the weekend. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with the fixes. The image of the Kalingan style has cleared lot of air - one suggestion is it can be resized and positioned. I am fine with the Relgious Significance section which details the significance and reasons out Shakti Pithas. I see there are suggestions to merge the first para and Shakti Pitha sub section, but that will dilute contents. So support retaining it in its present form. 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Images repositioned. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI I am not reviewing this article anymore. I did review it earlier and commented that the article met all GA criteria except 1a (the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct), specifically the "clear" part, for which I was in doubt.

If the second opinion reviewer (Ssriram) thinks that the article meets criteria 1a, no problem in promoting it.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like both users are happy with the article, so I'll close this. Wizardman 19:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)