Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chalukya dynasty

Chalukya dynasty

The article went through its peer review. Some changes were recommended and in accordance, required adjustments to format, content were made.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Have not read the whole article. Some observations:

1. Lead is too big. It need not have the description of so many conflicts. Please try to summarise. The description is expected in the main body later on.

   Thanks. Lead has been summarised now (yesterday and today) and some information which are not really required in introduction have been moved to later sections of the article. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2. "The progenitors of the dynasty are called the Badami Chalukyas." Here, Badami Chalukya needs to be wikilinked/explained.

   I have included a sentence explaining the name. Badami Chalukyas is another name applied to the original Chalukya dynasty. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3. In the lead itself Pulakesi II has been called as Pulakesin II. Please stick to one spelling. Same for Chalukyan and Chalukya.

   Thanks. This has been taken care now. - KNM ^Talk 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Kubja Vishnu Vardhana - wikilink.

   It has been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

5. "...they were natives to the Karnataka region." - would it be natives or native?

   The word has been changed to native. - KNM ^Talk 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Seleukia, Ikshavaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khusro II - wikilink.

   Seleukia, Andhra Ikshvaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khosrau II wikilinks have been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

7. ometimes, superscripts for citations have been placed wrongly. Please place all superscripts immediately after the punctuation marks, not before. Please see this in Wikipedia:Citing sources.
8. It is prefereble to use Template:Cite book, Template: Cite web, Harvard referencing etc. Also, please provide ISBN for all the books cited. In case of web sources, provide the access date. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the books published in India do not contain ISBN. - Parthi^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. That's a problem with some of Indian books. Anyway, available ISBN numbers are to be given. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with previous revewer about lead. Do you want to do it or others to help and have a go? Looks promising though...Cas Liber 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been taken care now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I will take care of the lead paragraph. If it is still unsatisfactory, go ahead and help out. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lead- I have removed moved the lines recommended for removal and the reference notes to a more suitable location.Dineshkannambadi 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinesh, I believe you wanted to write the word "moved" instead of "removed". Can you please verify again? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply Sorry, I meant moved NOT removedDineshkannambadi 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All the recommendations from the FAC review have been met. Please advice what needs to be done next.Dineshkannambadi 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

oops!! Kappe Arabhatta needs to be linked. Will do it soon.Dineshkannambadi 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some more comments

1)"The elephants were intoxicated prior to battle." - why?

comment This is mentioned with no real explanation. I can only guess that they were intoxicated to make them more aggressive. I have included citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2)"At the lower levels of administration, the Kadamba style fully prevailed." - what is Kadamba style? (Hope I've not missed it if you have mentioned the style in some other part of the article)

The Kadambas were their early overlords. The Chalukyas just maintained their administrative methods, after overthrowing them. I have added more info regarding this with citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3)"Some kings had concubines (Ganikas) who were given much respect, sati was perhaps absent, as inscriptions speak of widows and devadasis' being present" - inscriptions speak of Devdasis and widows that's why it is concluded that Sati was perhaps absent? Also, Sati wikilinks to a disambiguation page. Please correct the link.

I have corrected wording structure and added citation. Sati now does not link to disambiguation page.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

4)Some more citations are probably needed in the section "Badami Chalukya Government"

I have taken care of this. Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

5)There are some instances of overwikilinking. For example, in the section "Periods in Chalukya history", Western Chalukyas has been wikilinked thrice, Deccan has been wikilinked five times. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed some repeat wikilinks to Deccan, Kadambas, Pulakesi I etc.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I forgot to log in during previous replies to comments by Dwaipayan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs)

• Support very interesting read. Rama's arrow 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Article on one of the prominent dynasties in Indian history. Peer review comments and FAC review comments/recommendations (mentioned above) have been incorporated. Would make a good FA. - KNM ^Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (minor contributor on the article)

• Strong Support - per above. Sarvagnya 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - A well written article on a Indian History. -- Naveen ^(talk) 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - Section In popular culture is too short. Addition of some more relevant information would be appericiated. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work throughout the section. I strongly support it to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - web links in "Notes" and "Citation" are still not upto the mark. All web sources should include all the detail available (author, publisher, publication date etc) as far as possible. Only a single line description of the web sources describing the heading of the article/report is ok in "External links", but not in Notes and References. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - All points raised were effectively addressed. Nice informative article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)