Talk:Western Chalukya literature in Kannada

Marathi songs

कल्याणी चालुक्य राजा सोमेश्वर यांच्या 'मानसोल्लास' (११२९) या ग्रंथातील मराठी गीते म्हणजे मराठी वाड़्मयाच्या आरंभकालीन पाऊलखूणाच म्हटल्य पाहिजेत.

Marathi songs in Kalyani chalukya king Someshwar's Manasollas (1129) should be termed as stepping stone of Marathi literature. 59.95.28.231 10:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont want to edit what I dont know much about but I will say this. I find the article too daunting the way it is now. The lead is too long and you need to summarize the historical context better. This is supposed to be about literature not the history of the Empire. Also, try to divide the articles into more sections so readers can scan the table of contents and get a sense of what they will read beforehand. If possible, rework the map to focus better on the region of India we are talking about.

As a favor, you can look at two articles I have put up for peer review Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral and 1985 Mexico City earthquake.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will make the necessary changes. The minimlal historical info was given because in previous PR's, reviewers wanted some context. Same with the map. I have a map that only shows Chalukya territory, but a reviewer wanted the neighbouring kingdoms as well, because Kannada literature flourished over the entire Western Deccan.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Changed the map.
• I have added more subsection titles.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

I believe problems still remain with the article's flow and word choice. As time permits, I'll post what I think is problematic for your review, if I can't come up with an timely reword/fix myself.

• Re:"But his efforts were in vain, as other prominent Chalukya vassals, the Hoysalas, the Kakatiyas and the Seunas destroyed the remnants of the Chalukya power, forcing them to fade into history." Fading into history sounds a bit poetic, and it's unclear how people could be forced to do it. There isn't the control over the span of history to force a group to fade or not fade into it. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Removed "forced them to fade into history". "Destroying their power" says it all.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"By writing their poems in native metres, in a language close to the spoken form of Kannada, the Vachana poets had made redundant literary elitism and the hitherto dominant nexus between temple, state and monastery from the realm of literature." It took me two or three tries to read this the way I think you want it read. The first part of the sentence is ok, up to the "Vachana poets" part, but then it gets hard to understand. -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Simplified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"During this short and turbulent period lasting three decades (1153–1183), a new faith called Veerashaivism (or Lingayatism) developed as a revolt against the existing social order of the Hindu society." Are you committed to the "short" description? I'd like to drop it and just say "turbulent" because a lot of readers, particularly younger ones, probably don't consider three decades to a be a short period of time. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. removed "short"Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "Perhaps the most poignant piece of elegiac verse in all of ancient Kannada literature is one that describes the heart-rending lamentation (called karuna rasa or "sentiment of pathos") of Duryodhana on seeing the slain bodies of his brother Duhshasana, his inseparable friend in joy and sorrow, Karna, and Arjuna's valorous son Abhimanyu." I don't like the "Perhaps the most poignant piece" wording for two reasons. First, "most poignant...in all of ancient Kannada literature" is a strongly-worded opinion on how people should feel. Second, the sentence itself reflects unsurety; it states that "perhaps" the piece is the most poignant. The wording works for a review of a work, but not so much for an encyclopedia. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Changed the sentence a bit to The work contains some of the earliest examples of elegy in the Kannada language, noted among which is one piece that describes the heart-rending lamentation (called karuna rasa or "sentiment of pathos")...Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting 1

• Dinesh, I'm going to make some changes that might simply be my personal preferences, or based on the fact that I've heard one word more often than another, so don't think that a change means you used the wrong word. For instance, I'm changing "today's" to "now" for no particular reason I can think of, other than I'm used to seeing "now" in the relevant professional writing. Feel free to change anything back if you like it the way you had it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• There's a mention of "Madara Channaih, 1030-1120" in the infobox, but I'm not getting anything in the article in a search for that name or either of those dates. I see that there was another wide range of dates discussed in the peer review; is the same thing going on here, not being sure who the author was? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Madara Chanaiah is mentioned in the "early poets" section--Names of three poets from the early period and some of their poems are available. Madara Chennaiah, a cobbler turned saint is considered....Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, which of the two spellings do you prefer? And it seems unlikely he wrote over a 90-year span; can the span be narrowed? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

actually, thats his life span. Lets go with Chennaiah.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but all the other dates in the infobox are dates of publication, right? Do you have exact or approximate dates of publication for him? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the comments by Moni3 in the PR. It will help us as we go forward.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, read her comments. I responded there, and I also want to say that the way she's describing her ideal article is ... well, an ideal. Not every article has to hit the reader over the head with how special the topic is. But I agree ... if you've got a quote somewhere that we could put at the end of the lead, that gives the uninformed reader an idea of the role of literature in Indian history and in particular the role of Kannada literature in the Western Chalukya Empire, that's a plus. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see you're getting good feedback from Devore, too; please do everything you can with Moni and Devore first, they have good instincts about how to organize articles for ease of reading and maximum impact on the reader. What I do is more in the nature of copyediting, after you've settled on your goals for each section. (Btw, I'll stop watchlisting here and just watchlist your user page until you guys are done.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 13:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Article flow

• Two items for now. Re:"His deftly written poems, all of which end with the word "Kudalasangama" (lit, "God of the confluence of two rivers", the poets version of the god Shiva), 1300 of which have survived, have been described by Shiva Prakash H.S., a scholar on medieval Kannada literature, as lyrical, satirical, deeply contemplative and self-critical."

This is a complex and busy sentence, with multiple parenthetical phrases, including a long literally parenthetical remark. By the time I read to the quote at the end, I have almost forgotten the subject from all the digressive remarks. Can you trim or rework it to more than one sentence?

 Done. split into multiple sentences.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Continuing, the paragraph on Basavanna ends with: "Though Basavanna himself was a minister under the patronage of the king, his poems betray his contempt towards kingship. Above all, his poems convey his deep devotion to the god Shiva. In one satirical poem, Basavanna decries the hypocrisy of a snake charmer and his wife, who on their way to find a bride for their son cancel the journey when they come across a bad omen–another snake charmer and his wife."

The last sentence appears to be tacked on. It does not appear related to or flow from the previous sentence. The preceding "Above all..." sentence reads as either a concluding summation of Basavanna's poetry or perhaps as an introduction to another aspect of the poetry. Yet the snake-charmer story that follows has nothing (that I can see) to do with Basavanna's deep devotion to Shiva. I am not saying that the snake-charmer story doesn't fit into the article, but I am saying it does not fit where it is unless you tie it more closely to Shiva or Basavanna's devotion. Otherwise the paragraph becomes a choppy collection of details. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Simply switched the occurance of the first and second part of the sentence. Please see how it reads now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "Sarvajna (lit. "The all knowing")–a mendicant poet-moralist a and social reformer left a indelible imprint on Kannada literature with his didactic poems, numbering about two thousand in all." There's an extra a in "a and" that needs removed or repositioned, but that's not the main issue. I'm wondering about the en dash. If you are using an en dash as the interrupting punctuation rather than an em dash, the en dash should be spaced on either side, throughout the article, per MOS:DASH. Also, here I can't figure out the interruption, since there is only one dash and the sentence doesn't conclude on the interruption. Did you want a second dash to go after "social reformer"? -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Parentheticals, asides, and digressions

A problem I see with the article is that it has a large number of digressive and parenthetical clauses, affecting the article's readability. I don't think the clauses are always desirable and I think a sizeable portion of them should be either removed, trimmed, or reworked into multiple sentences. Of course, you will not want to keep all sentences short and devoid of any explanatory clauses, but I think the article goes to far in the other direction.

My first example is in (the fairly short): "It constituted the bulk of the Chalukya court's textual production and pertained mostly to writings relating to the socio-religious development of the Jain faith (an ancient religion of India). Here Jain is wikilinked and faith follows as a further explanatory word. I don't think that "(an ancient religion of India)" substantially adds to the article's content, but mostly bogs down the flow.

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Another example, one where I think the explanations run too long, is in the sentence: "For a few centuries after Kavirajamarga ("Royal path for poets", a writing on poetics and rhetoric, c. 850), the earliest available Kannada literary work, Jain writings had adhered to Sanskritic models (called marga or mainstream) that had been recognised by the state as the path for future Kannada writers, while subjugating native poetic forms (called desi or popular local, compositions such as Chattana and Bedande) to a subordinate state." That's quite a chunk of information to process as one sentence.

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Both overexplaining and overly complex structures are in: "At about this time, adding to pressure from the popularity of the Vachana canon in northern Kannada speaking region, to which the Jain authors of traditional champu style had no immediate response, the noted Hoysala King Vishnuvardhana (1108–1152) of the southern Kannada speaking region had converted from Jainism to Vaishnavism (a Hindu sect devoted to the god Vishnu)." Besides reading as overstuffed, I'm not convinced that "a Hindu sect devoted to the god Vishnu)" is needed. At some point, you have to let Wikipedia allow readers to click through to articles with more information at the readers' own volition. This is covered by the wikilinked Vaishnavism. If you want to keep a bit of explanatory context, instead of the full parenthetical clause, how about saying "...had converted from Jainism to the Hindu sect Vaishnavism." and remove the following parentheses?

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I'll try to come up with more later on. Anyway, these are the types of FAC-prep issues where a top-flight copyeditor can really help by smoothing things out. It is quite unfortunate that those level of editors are so rare and hard to schedule. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with your analysis. I put all those bracketed explanations to satisfy Moni3 who felt that the article should be written for someone completely unaware of Indic culture. I will trim those you pointed out and more.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed many unnecessary bracketed contents and simplified one of the sentences you pointed out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Content questions

• Re:"The Hoysala court poets, some of who are noted for pioneering works in native metres, belonged to both the Shaiva (though not to the Vachana poetic tradition) and the Jain faith". This in the section titled "Literature after the Chalukyas". Why is it important to state that the Hoysala court poets belonged to Shaiva and Jain faith? I don't see how the sentence content relates to the article or section topic, except for the part of about "noted for pioneering works in native metres". -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Made significant changes here to seperate out writings in native metres from those in non-native metrics.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"While Basavanna's zeal and influence led to the formation and popularity of the Veerashaiva movement in Kalyani, it was Allama who was the undisputed spiritual authority presiding over the gatherings." What gatherings, the Veerashaiva? Are Veerashaiva gatherings part of the religion? -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Edited. The gatherings of Veerashaiva devotees.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"The noted Brahmin writers of the Vijayanagara empire, Kumara Vyasa, Timmanna Kavi, Kumara Valmiki and Chatu Vitthalanata used the shatpadi metre to perfection in their versions of the Hindu epics." Is there a quantifiable standard for "perfection" in the shatpadi metre? Otherwise I don't believe you can use the term "perfection" as a non-POV/peacock word without a quantifiable way to measure perfection. For example, one could achieve perfection in bowling with a 300-point game, but it would be hard to say that a song was sung to perfection without that being a personal opinion about the singer. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed this to "proliferated" instead of "perfection".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:Inspired by the Vachana writers who used the song-prose medium to write their poems, the Haridasa poets who were unrelated to the court used genres such as the kirthane (musical compositions with two refrains–composition based on raga, or tune and tala, or rhythm), the Suladi (rhythm-based) and the Ugabhoga (melody-based) to convey their devotion to God." The parenthetical phrase "who were unrelated to the court" needs to be bracketed by commas if it is kept, but my question is why is it in the sentence? Do the Haridasa poets need further qualification about their relation to the court for the article? I stumble over the phrase when reading the sentence and would like to remove it unless it's a necessary detail. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid edit conflict, I will wait for you to finish before addressing these issues.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Removed "unrelated to the court". To keep it, I would have to specify that the Haridasa poets were generally unrelated to the court, "like the Vachana poets". Kanakadasa is an exception as he is known to have taken a governor/ministerial position under King Achyutaraya (Sinopoli, 2003).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "Born in a merchant family of Udatadi (or Udugani) (in the Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka) and possibly married against her wishes to a feudal chief called Kausika, she renounced worldly pleasures, opting for a life of devotion and ascetism." Unlike many of the parenthetical remarks I have a problem with in the article, this one actually needs more explanation since there isn't a wikilink for either Udatadi or Udugani. Is Udatadi a town, or a caste, or a family name? -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Specified it is a town.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"Written to instruct the country folk in the simple native tripadi metre, these poems cover a vast range of topics, from caste and religion to economics and administration, from arts and crafts to family life and health. Sarvajna's poems constitute some of Kannada's most popular works." Were the poems written to instruct the folk in the metre, or were the poems written to instruct the folk on the topics? I assume the latter, but don't want to mess around with the sentence unless I'm sure that's what you mean. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Modified. To instruct the folk on the topic "using" the easily understoof native metre.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's enough for me for now. I see a lot more work to do, but need a break. If I come back in a couple hours or so and you're not working on it (already done or not started), I may do more work tonight. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont plan to start tonight. Will wait for you to finish. Planning my next article, perhaps "Kannada in early Indian epigraphy" (2nd century BC-5th century CE):)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"An inscription from c. 967 suggests that an unsuccessful rebellion was staged by a local Chalukya chief Chattideva and the Kadamba chief of Banavasi (in the Uttara Kannada district, Karnataka)." Is this about two people, one named Chattideva and one unnamed, or is about a single person who was both a Chalukya and Kadamba chief? Is Chattideva a person's name, title, or something else? -- Michael Devore (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Modified. Chattideva is the name of one petty king. He took the help of another local petty king of Banavasi.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"Writing a Kannada grammar in Sanskrit language was essential to Nagavarma II, whose aim may have been to rebut Sanskritic scholars of the day who may have considered Kannada a language of the common man and its grammar as underdeveloped." If the grammar was known to be essential to Nagavarma II, then shouldn't its aim also be known? Essentials are incompatible with a "may have been" description, unless there is another reason given to declare the essential nature of the grammar. Also, the "may have been to rebut" along with the "may have considered Kannada a language" gives the article two different "maybe" remarks about the same sentence topic, and comes off as flabby, without making any definite statement. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you reword this yourself. From what I understand, great works on grammar have normally been written to 1) consolidate diverging grammatical styles brought about by dialects of a language 2) Consolidate grammar by adding incorporated/naturalised words from other languages. Here, in addition to these two, Nagavarma wanted to make a point, though in a subtle way, to teach Sanskrit Pundits to accept Kannada gramar alongside Sanskrit grammar. So the best way to achiieve this was to write the Sutra (commentary) in Sanskrit. I did not want to go into details on Sutra an such.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I have removed the double "may" usage after reading through the source.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Re:"Revolutionary because the Veerashaivas, acted in protest, using the pure form of Kannada language in their poems, encouraged writers from lower castes to participate and hence gained mass appeal, and completely eliminated themes that had been considered standard by the king and the monastery." Besides a minor grammar issue here, I'd like to reword this somewhat, but I want to make sure I know what caused what. Was the Veerashaivas' protest the three points of "pure form of Kannada language", "encouraging writers of lower castes" and "eliminating standard themes"? In other words, are those three conscious changes they made as an act of protest? Also, was the mass appeal gained solely by encouraging lower caste writers, or did the pure form of Kannada also help with the mass appeal? And was mass appeal affected by the elimination of standard themes? -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • yes, their protest includes a concious choice of using pure form of Kannada + encouraging lower caste writers + rejecting traditional themes. The mass appeal was also because of all three above types of protest. Please go ahead and reword it yourself.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that's enough for now. I've stacked up questions that can affect quite a bit of content, plus my eyes are starting to glaze over on this stuff, so I'm going to take a break and will get back into it after you've had a chance to reply and decide what to do. I see remaining issues, but it will take work and probably more questions to figure it all out. May start again tomorrow, depending on my free time. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please check my modifications and make sure its reads well.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't have as much time to work on it today as I would have liked, but at first glance your changes look OK. I'll try to work on the article as my time permits through Sunday night, and we'll see where we stand then. I'll post any questions here as they come to me. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "According to Kannada scholar R. Narasimhacharya, despite the production of some important secular writings, repeated Chola invasions into Kannada lands in the 11th century may have effected literary production." Just so we're clear, "effected" in this context means the invasions caused the literary production or brought it into being. "affected" would mean that literary production was influenced by the invasions. Is "effected" what you want? -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No, actually the literary production was slowed down by the invasions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "The first version, completed in 1400 by Shivaganaprasadi Mahadevaiah, was written in the form of a dialogue between the protagonist (saint Allama Prabhu) and other well-known devotees." Devotees of what, the Vachana poetic tradition? -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Corrected. More precisely, of the Veerashaiva movement, considering that not all Veerashaivas wrote Vachana poems.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "Some poems contain a kalajnana (prophecy) section which forecasts the arrival of a messiahnic king called Vira Vasantha Raya who would revive Kalyani and the Veerashaiva faith to its full glory." I'm not sure what "revive Kalyani..." exactly means. Was Kalyani a depressed or ruined city that need reviving? And if the Veerashaiva faith was to be revived to its "full glory", does that mean the faith was no longer as active or strong as it had previously been? -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good question. Poems with this sort of prophecy may have been written after the assasination (cant quote it though) of King Bijjala II, when most Veerashaivas dispersed from Kalyani and the movement saw a temporary setback. Also the Veerashaiva congregations lasted only a decade or so, after which (after 1167) the Kalachuri kingdom was ruled by weak kings and the period saw very unstable consitions, with the Hoysalas, Seunas and Kakatiyas all fighting for control of the capital and the vast Chalukya territories. The Chalukyas themselves were in exile ruling from Annigeri (a place I visited last year) and were struggling to come back to power in Kalyani. To avoid any probing on the issue, I will remove that line. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Re: "Satyakka, whose poems compare in quality to those of Akka Mahadevi, Lakkamma, Kelavve, a dalit women whose poems scorned at the upper caste people, Ketaladevi, Guddavve, the wife of a comb-maker, Mahadevi and Lingamma, poets who wrote in a mystic language, Amuge Rayamma and Akkamma who don't spare the hypocrisy of religious pretences, Kadire Remavva, a spinner who employed a form of cryptic language called bedagu ("cryptic"), Muktayakka, known for her debates with the patron saint Allama himself, and even a princess called Bontadevi." I can't figure this sentence out. It looks like it might be two sentence fragments (here a list of subjects without a predicate) sandwiching the explanation or description of the lists, i.e. "poets who wrote in a mystic language". -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I will try to simplyfy it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see how it reads now.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I have also removed this sentence Inscriptions mention a Bahurupi Chaudayya who was well known for his histrionic talent while reciting his poems and Mokari Baramayya who is described as a "Brahma" (creator) of all arts with knowledge and talent in singing, dancing and playing musical instruments. Only the first mentioned was a Vachana poet, but appears as though his poems may not be extant, and as such, we have no shortage of Vachana poets in the article whose poems are available.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Content questions (break to new section)

There is duplication of thought in the same paragraph discussion with the two sentences "Several women poets whose poems are no less impressive than those of Akka Mahadevi's have been identified." and "Notable among them are Satyakka whose poems compare in quality to those of Akka Mahadevi..." -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Corrected this. Only Satyakka's poems have been compared specifically to those of Akka Mahadevi.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Kadire Remavva (a spinner) who employed a cryptic language called bedagu ("cryptic") in her poems", I would like to reword this to not use "cryptic" twice, since in this context it sounds like a tautology, but have a question. Does bedagu literally mean "cryptic" in the Kannada language? If so, that will be the one to keep, since you've been supplying parenthetical translations throughout the article. -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. removed double usage of word.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "A popular poem written by her describes the life of a silk worm which spins a cocoon around itself, making it impossible to extricate itself and eventually dies in it–the silk worm is compared to a person and the silk threads, to worldly desires." This sentence needs a bit of work, but I'm confused by the basic premise. Don't silk worms always spin cocoons around themselves as part of their life cycle, which is used by humans to create silk? Why is it different in this case? -- Michael Devore (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• • I think here the poet is only comparing the worm confined within its cocoon to a person confined to worldly desires. The fact that it creates a material that man uses and calls silk is perhaps not of importance to Akka Mahadevi. Let us not forget that silk, from the earliest of times, is considered a fabric of the rich–those who cherish worldly pleasures, while cotton, that of the common man.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:"The 12th century heralded an age of prosperity when cultural and literary developments got a boost." The phrase "got a boost" is less formal compared to most of the rest of the article and subject to different interpretations. By the phrase do you mean new cultural and literary developments were promoted in the 12th century? The "age of prosperity" was the cause of the "boosted" developments, and wasn't just an unrelated parallel occurrence, right?

• Reworded.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:"The exact dating of grammarian Nagavarma-II has been debated." I'm not sure you're supposed to date actual historical figures as one does events or carbon-dated objects. In addition, the debate apparently remains ongoing. I have been thinking of a better way to phrase things. Maybe "The exact time when grammarian Nagavarma-II lived is debated by historians."? Also, since you previously mentioned summary or lead sentences in sections, this dating sentence is the first of the section. You might consider placing a short summary sentence about "Consolidation of grammar" before this one. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• reworded per your example. Will add a topic sentence or two about the existance (available/postulated) of earlier grammars and grammarians today.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Added topic sentence.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you want to add a topic sentence for "Early poets" and "Rebel literature"? I'm not sure how deeply you want to take this, but they are at the same section level as "Consolidation of grammar". Also, is it "the Veerashaivism" or just "Veerashaivism? Usually -ism's are movements or beliefs that wouldn't have a leading "the" (e.g. Catholicism), but that might not be the case here since it's directly called a sect in the content. (Note: my edits have been slow the past couple of days, but hopefully the pace will pick back up after the election craziness is over). -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is just Veerashaivism.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• May be getting too bulky as it is. But will think about it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Some of the followers of this faith wrote poems expressing their mystic experiences and devotion to the god Shiva." I think you might be able to remove this sentence since it's pretty basic and the idea is covered in better detail later in the paragraph where it states devotees "expressed their devotion to Shiva in simple poems which were spontaneous utterances of rhythmic, epigrammatical and satirical prose emphasising the worthlessness of riches, rituals and book learning." -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the subsection "Other poets" is the final paragraph of the "Bankti literature" section, the paragraph starting with "Challenging the very core of the caste-based society...". This content doesn't have any direct relation to other poets, and perhaps should have its own section title of the same level as the preceding "Early poets" and "Rebel literature". -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Shantinatha, patronised by King Somesvara II, wrote the poem Sukumaracharita in c. 1068, the Brahmin Advaita (believer of monistic philosophy) saint Nagavarmacharya (1070) of Balipura (modern Balligavi, Karnataka), who was patronised by King Udayatidya (and claims to be his minister of war and peace), a vassal of Chalukya King Somesvara II, wrote Chandrachudamani sataka in the sataka (hundred line verse) metre." Is this sentence only about Shantinatha and Nagavarmacharya? There are so many clauses and parentheticals around and after mention of Nagavarmacharya that it is hard to tell if the rest of the sentence is just about him or there are more people involved. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes.only about Shantinatha and Nagavarmacharya. perhaps the patron info can be better worded.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Simplified.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please recheck that entie para starting with Shantinatha, patronised.... I have simplified it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are my final review comments on the article. The original content isn't necessarily wrong, but these are things I noticed while reading through the article. I leave them to your judgement as to whether they need to be changed or corrected, or left as they are.

• prosody is wikilinked to a dab page.

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• maverick is wikilinked to a dab page. If you want a wikilink for the word, maybe wikilink to the wiki dictionary?

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The subsection title "The decline" is at the level of a child/subsection of "Rebel literature", which is a subsection of "Bhakti literature". Should it be a subsection of "Rebel literature" or at a higher level?

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re: "The occurrence of the term purvacharyar in some contexts of the writing may be a reference to previous grammarians or rhetoricians." This doesn't really explain what the term purvacharyar means to the reader.

• • The term is a compound Sanskrit term, assimilated into many languages, consisting of Purva+Acharya. Purva means "previous" or "earlier" and Acharya generally means "expert", though in modern India, it is used as the last name of many in the Brahmin community (such as the author Narasimhacharya, I have referenced so often in this article). Because Kavirajamarga is a work on grammar and rhetoric, the term Purvacharyar refers to previous experts in grammar or rhetoric.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Re:"His Abhidana Vastukosa ("Treasury of significations"), a lexicon, gives Kannada equivalents of nearly eight thousand Sanskrit words and is considered an achievement which attempted to give Kannada language considerable footing in the world of Sanskrit literary dominance." This is a bit weak. The work is a notable achievement for "attempting" to give "considerable footing"? That doesn't sound like very much of an achievement the way it's worded. Can you drop the "attempt" part or otherwise show it as more notable for making the attempt?

 DoneDineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article mentions the importance of Basavanna in the first "Rebel literature" section paragraph, but in his own "Basavanna" section it says "The life of Basavanna marks a milestone in the history of Karnataka state, India. A towering personality, his zeal and socio-cultural achievements in the realm of peace and equality of mankind have brought about enduring changes in society" without backing up the claims with direct evidence. Can you put a summary sentence or two in there which explains why his life was a milestone and how he made enduring changes in society? Otherwise the remaining details in his section sound like the other early authors in the article who wrote poetry and other works, without noting Basavanna's special distinction beyond those works.

• • Most writers in this article predate Basavanna. Moreover, his stature is not because of his poetry, but because of his personality.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with the FAC when you decide to make the submission. You've done an amazing amount of work here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• • So have you.:)Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)