Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature/archive1

Kannada literature

Check external links

Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because Kannada language and its literature are one of the oldest in India. It has a literary tradition spanning 1500 years. Kannada writers have made invaluable contributions to Indian literature, both classical and modern. Hence I feel this article is important. The article is well referenced and cited. It has been copyedited a couple of times. Please provide constructive feedback which would help to make this a FA.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me in its present form. I also agree that some of the criticisms above, such as (previously) lacking an "external links" section, are unfounded. Not every featured article need have a section of web links, and that goes doubly for a such an article as this. This isn't about video games, it's about an ancient literary tradition, whose important sources are not found online. Additional appropriate links may continue to be added. NTK (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Discussion of invalid oppose moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment looking at sources and photos only.
  • Footnote 7 goes to a book review. Is that considered a reliable source? (I honestly don't know, and am looking for guidance on this. The review says what the footnote is referenced to.)

DK Reply footnote 7 agrees with footnote 8, which is from a book I own. So I used it. Seems reliable, but I will look and see if I can change #7 to a real book citation, instead of web citation.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Footnote 173 the site does show 7 Kannada language awardees, but it probably needs a source saying the award is prestigious. (I'm not doubting it is, it just needs a third-party source saying it is.)

DK Reply No problem. Will provide that clarification.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have included a citation from "Students' Britannica India" to indicate it is an important award.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Footnote 174 is to a dead link.

DK Reply Will correct this one. It was okay untill a few days back.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Found replacement web link, untill official web link is repaired.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Not being familiar with Indian publishing houses, I'm going to have to hope they are reliable publishing houses. The presence of Oxford University Press in there helps with that.

DK Reply All the publishing houses mentioned are reliable and well established, so are the historians who wrote those books.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Rely Apart from the Oxford publishers, other well known publishers that have been referenced are Sahitya Akademi who come recognised by Gov. of India, , Asian Educational services etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Purandara.jpg could use a new license tag on Commons, but it's certainly out of copyright so should be safe enough. (Image was originally uploaded in 2004, so not surprising the tag is outdated.)

DK Reply Will see what I can do about the copyright tag.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

All the other images look like they are properly licensed. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - the link to the kannada wp in the incipit isn't a big idea for a featured article; there isn't an external links sections; there are some bolds non-in the incipit. Questions? You find me in the same page. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC) - to SandyGeorgia: warning, you move my vote in the talk!

Reply I do not see any link to Kannada wikipedia in the incipit. What is there is the translation of the term "Kannada literature" in Kannada script.

And bye the way, there is an External links section!--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

reply to reply - yes, you delayed it (I'm not born yesterday...) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question The article says, "The medieval period saw the development of literary metres indigenous to the Kannada language", and examples given include "tripadi (three line verse, 7th century), the shatpadi (six line verse, 1165)". Are these metres indigenous to Kannada literature? Similar metres are there in other Indian (I do not know about non-Indian languages) languages also.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The books I refered to written by Sahtiya Akademi, E.P. Rice, B.L. Rice, Shiva Prakash etc all say thay are native metres and characteristic of Kannada language. Its possible that variants exist in other languages and may have local vernacular names, though I can't really comment on that. Vernacular literature in other languages using these metres may have appeared in later centuries, considering that the influence of Sanskritik models on north Indian vernaculars is much more pronounced. As such, mature literature in many venacular languages, are known to have appeared after the 10th century. Tripadi is closest to spoken Kannada, Ragale (blank verse) is said to be a Lingayat invention, Shatpadi was first mentioned by Kannada poet Nagavarma in 900 (in his extant Karnataka Kadambari or Chhandhombhudhi- dont recall which one), indicating an existing tradition in that metre, but became popular from 12th century, Sangatya was first used in 12th century in Kannada and later popularised by the Haridasas' like Purandaradasa, Akkara is known to be peculiar to Kannada and was adopted in Telugu later. On the contrary, the Champu (prose-verse), Dwipadi (2 line verse), Chowpadi (4 line verse), Shataka (100 line verse) and Ashtaka (8 line verse) are adopted from Sanskrit.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Here is a link from Sahitya Akademi regarding tripadi metre and shatpadi metre. From this it seems, as I mentioned earlier, there may be a variety of tripadis and shatpadis.[1], [2]. The books I have cited from (Narasimhacharya, Shiva Prakash and E.P. Rice) also call them native to Kannada.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Why is the earliest example of Kannada language in a dramatic writing not mentioned? Specifically, Charition mime a greek play discovered in Egypt in 19th Century. Also, as suggested in the article talk page, a sentence or two on Gokak movement could be mentioned in this article. - KNM ^Talk 19:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Ooops! sorry about that. Will add them right away, though I must say that scholars are divided about the Greek Papyrus.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have added Charition mime to the lead and Gokak movement to the "Appreciation" section.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, for now. An interesting and comprehensive article that needs a thorough copyedit with fresh expert eyes. I have just now worked extensively on the lead. The remainder now needs fixing for logical order in the exposition, adjustments to punctuation, quality of expression, and uniformity of style. The copious and impressive notes need a thorough review: page numbers are not treated consistently (see what I have done, so far), brackets need attention, there are omissions (Barnett et al. are mentioned in passing, but they are not among the cited works), etc. I look forward to seeing those changes, and to being able to support what will soon be a fine article indeed! –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Thanks for the copy edit. I will try to maintain the same quality through out, though, as you suggest, a new pair of eyes will work wonders. BTW, Barnett et al. are mentioned in the book by Kamath which I have used in that same citation. I dont have a seperate book for that.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will approach the league of copy editors for help.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

DK reply I have requested for help with copy editing.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Why does the article sometimes switch to a present tense presentation when describing some of the literature? Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will read through the article again and correct this if this is an issue. Could you please point out where you found this tense issue. It will give me an idea what to look for.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I am in the process of going through the article and I do find some instances where the description of the story tends to go into present tense. Though I have changed it to past tense, I feel that sometimes when describing mythological events that may have never taken place or may have been passed on through a culture by tradition, the story reads better when in present tense. The books from which I sourced these details also describe that writing in present tense (sometimes). I feel, from personal experience, that narrating a story in present tense was a style popular in the old world (Asia for instance). Please check the edits I have made with the edit detail "cpedit removed present tense per FAC review" and let me now if this how you want it. So far there have been five instances where I have made this change. I have one more section to cover (modern literature).Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have changed the tense from present to past in about six cases. If there are more, please point it out and I will work on them.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Question What is the reason you fail to add links on the names of the authors? I would hope that Wikipedia has articles about them -- & if not, then the red link will give people useful suggestions about articles they should write. -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply By authors, if you mean the authors of the ancient/modern classics, I have provided links to many such authors, examples being Adikavi Pampa, Ranna, Janna, Nagavarma II, Sri Ponna. Its a long list of linked names actually, in the article. I think most authors have been linked. The few authors who are not linked are those in the "Early extinct literature" section and there may be a few scattered names in the rest of the article. Normally too many red-links are not appreciated in a FAC, from my previous experience. As such, the Karnataka work group is actively and constantly creating link pages. I shall link a few names that I feel should get top priority in the near future. Thanks for bringing this up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I have red-linked 6 poets/authors.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The end of the third paragraph is a bit overreferenced ( refs 14-21). All these refs are also repeated in the following section(s).. so maybe all but 2 or 3 of them can be removed from the lead. Sarvagnya 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Actually, the reason I put so many citations is to ensure that there be no edit warring in the future. Language is generally a hot button topic among Wiki India articles and I felt this should keep skeptics away. However, you are right. I will remove a few of them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have reduced the number of citations in that lead paragraph.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Gives me a feeling, one of the best articles among the literature articles of a language. Very well written prose with ample citations and footnotes, strengthened with a good lot of images. The concerns I had raised were addressed. Meets the FA criteria, especially when it appeared C.4 (It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail) was going to be difficult. The huge collection of child articles covering greater details, as given under each of the main page sections, has made it easier for this one to become a perfect summary style article. Well done! - KNM ^Talk 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Needs a copy-edit. "prompting some historians to posit a Buddhist era in Kannada literature (before 4th century CE), preceding the Jain period." - What Jain period? It is written as if the reader should already be in the know of such a period; rephrase or at least qualify it as "Jain period of such-and-such dates."

DK Reply Let me explalin what Jain period actually means. It is widely accepted, that from the time of Kadambas (4th century), Jain writers and Jainism in general was given ample patronage, though the Kadambas themselves were Brahiminical. The period from 7th century to 12th century especially, from when most of the Jain literature and writers are known (about 200 poets/writers in all) is considered the "Augusten age of Kannada literature". This is attested perhaps without exception by scholars when it comes to Kannada literature. I have given a brief idea of this in the section titled "Medieval period", subsection "overview". I will try to clarify this in the lead also. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Having referred to multiple sources, I have tried to generally qualify the beginning of Jain age in Kannada language. It is difficult to give an exact date from when Jain literature actually started, but majority of the earliest writers, starting from around the ascendency of the Kadambas and Western Ganga Dynasty are thought off as being Jains, under royal patronage. We need to keep in mind that a Jain writer could also be a writer of inscriptions, not just literature on palm leaf manuscripts. Ravi Kirti (636 CE) is a good example, the author of the Aihole record of a Sanskrit poetic inscription written in Kannada script. From references to him in 9th century literature, he is also known to have written Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of [21][22][23][16][24] and [29][30][23][15][31], could you spread the references through the sentence (eg: after every comma). (777) - you mean the year right? Add a CE to improve clarity.

DK Reply These two sets of citations cant really be split after a comma. Here is why. Vimalachandra (777), Udaya, Nagarjuna, Jayabhandu and King Durvinita (6th century) and poets such as Srivijaya, Kavisvara, Pandita, Chandra, Ravi Kirti (634) and Lokapala.[21][22][23][16][24]. In this sentence, every source I have quoted confirms almost all these poets. The reason I added so many citations is to clarify that this is a popular view point. Same goes for the other set of citations numberd [29][30][23][15][31]. These two sentences, according to scholars, are the crux that proves the Kannada literature existed for centuries before Kavirajamarga. Regarding 777, yes it is the date 777 CE. Here in this article, the CE designation has been given only to the earliest examples of writing, namely Halmidi inscription among inscriptions and Kavirajamarga in literature. If I add CE and make it 777 CE, I would have to do it through out the article for consistency which is perhaps not required. Some reviewers prefer not to have the CE or AD on every date designation, some reviewers like it. I think its a matter of style. However, I shall add it to the place you pointed to.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think two of the sources would be fine; clearly it is not a controversial issue. If anybody objects add more. This is only for the sake of readabilty. indopug (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply I have reduced the number of citations in that section overall.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• "He was patronised by Ganga King Ereganga Neetimarga II, whom he favourably compared in the Sudraka to King Sudraka of ancient times (who is generally dated to early 1st millennium)." - Rewrite; the second "he" seems ambiguous and the stuff is in the parenthesis is really difficult to understand.

DK Reply Done.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article cannot be shortened further; does stuff like "perhaps dedicated to the Eastern Chalukya King Vijayaditya III (844–888)," really add anything to the reader? It seems like unnecessary detail to me. indopug (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The article satisfies C.4 as mentioned by another reviewer. The total content in all the subarticles exceeds 250K of data. The summary article here is about a quarter of it. But I will see if any content can be removed to shorten by a few paragraphs. Regarding giving details about which king the writing was dedicated to, there are other similar examples in the article. Adding the info and linking Eastern Chalukya would give the user more info about South Indian history and the idea that Kannada literature was popular in regions outside the traditional Kannada speaking regions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think "the idea that Kannada literature was popular in regions outside the traditional Kannada speaking regions" is completely lost on somebody who is unaware about basic South Indian history (me). Here it isn't known to most that E.Chalukya is outside Karnataka, hence the point is lost. The king deications would be more apt for specific articles. indopug (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Done DK Reply Removed reference to Eastern Chalukya King but mentioned that its the earliest known prosody in the language.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will look into your comments today. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am by no means versed on the topic, but it seems impeccably well written and referenced to me. Kudos to all involved. Amerique^dialectics 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Object At first, on a cursory look, I expected this would be an article that would meet FA criteria. However, looking at it more closely, I no longer think this is ready to be classified as Wikipedia's best work.

• I found that the prose, particularly in the first few sections, is very becoming of a FA. But this exceptionally high standard expected of an FA is not maintained throughout the article - somewhere in between, it does begin to noticeably drop. Some of the sentences follow the same sort of English that one would find in the books (sources used) themselves, which is again, another concern - whether it is copyrighted or not is something I cannot comment on without the sources.

DK Reply I am confused. You say you have no access to the sources, then you say there could be a concern with copyrights. How could you suggest that there could be a concern when you have nothing to substatiate it with.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a concern if relevant quotations were given, or better still, the prose was improved.Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The prose is being improved. More than one user is helping me with copy edits. Again, regarding providing quotations, you are implying there is a copyright issue as is, but you also say you have no sources to confirm it. Are we going around in circiles here?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are some instances where text should be italicized appropriately, such as 'Pragatishila'.

DK Reply I looked at the article and decided not the italic Navya, Novodaya and Pragatishila because they are genres in literature. Throughout the article, italics are used for metres and names of writings only. If I have missed a metre or writing, please let me konw and I will be glad to change it.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I will read that section again and see if those words like Pragatishila need to be in italics.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Is now in italics.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I find that the article is not of an appropriate length, as there is some degree of unnecessary detail in the article, and the focus of the article appears to be placed on certain popular persons rather than the actual literature. Several unnecessary details are contained in paragraphs dedicated to Basavanna, Purandara Dasa, Kanaka Dasa, Sarvajna (to name a few), which have been written more-like biographies. The focus is lost from the Kannada literature, and resembles a page of well-written mini-biographies. The article should be focused on the Kannada literature itself. Example in the next point.

DK Reply NcmVocalist, I think you have misunderstood the intent behind this article. This article is not about Basavanna's poems or Purandaradasa's devotional songs specifically, but rather about the development of Kannada literature and the role played by these important people. The focus here is about "Kannada literature" in general. You can read any number of books titled "Kannada literature" (by Narasimhacharya, E.P. Rice, B.L. Rice, Sastri just to name a few), not one among them actually dwell on the specifics of the poems written by any of these poets. You are not expecting me to cut and paste Basavanna's poems here, are you? then that could really be a issue of copyrights.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi, a reasonable person/reader will not expect an article titled "Kannada literature" to focus solely on its development, with little focus on the literature itself. This is common-sense, I would think. It seems you are suggesting that Wikipedia should keep the name of the article as is, purely because the books have been titled this way, but this is not the basis upon which Wikipedia can determine how appropriate a title is to the content of the article! I'm not expecting you to cut and paste the poems - this would be meaningless and would do no favours for the article. Either a more appropriate title needs to be given, or all the unnecessary bits need to be removed and replaced with more material that focuses on Kannada literature generally. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Ncmvocalist, I have already explained to you that details on the classics, poems are already given in the wikilinked article. Please see Akka Mahadevi or Basavanna for instance which have a few poems. Please look at the sub-articles such as Western Chalukya literature, Hoysala literature etc. where almost every poet/writers classics have been dealt, in a few lines. It is not the intent of this main article to provide poems and quotations.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let's look at Vachana of the mystic literature section (for example). It should begin something like "Vachana Sahitya (ವಚನ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ, "Vachana literature") or Sharana Sahitya ("literature of the devotees") is a body of literature that that consisted of a unique and native form of poetic literature in free verse (non-metrical verse) called Vachana.[41][91]" as this is the Kannada literature this entire subsection focuses on.

DK Reply Actually, I am providing continuity from where I left off with the Western Chalukyas giving a sentence or two indicating how the devotees came together and how Kalyani became the city were they gathreed.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• But who authored this literature? Was it the vachanakaras listed towards the end of this subsection? Was it the Veerashaivism faith? Was it both? Please make this clear. There's a long story about how Veerashaivism came about by Basavanna - some of which is unnecessary. "A centre of religious discussions called Anubhava Mantapa ("hall of experience") in Kalyani became the conclave where devotees gathered to discuss their mystic experiences.[90] Here, they expressed their devotion to Shiva in simple poems called Vachanas. These poems were spontaneous utterances of rhythmic, epigrammatical, satirical prose emphasising the worthlessness of riches, rituals and book learning, displaying a dramatic quality reminiscent of the dialogues of Plato.[91][92]" But then where is the sentence that links this to the actual Sharana Sahitya??

DK Reply I have copy edited the sentence and you will see it does connect the followers of this faith to their poetry better.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The focus doesn't come back to the actual body of literature, which the article is meant to focus on. It appears to be focussing suddenly on Vachana poems in general. This shifted focus appears to continue to the end of the subsection. In its current state, the article fails to stay on the actual body of literature.

DK Reply I think you are again expecting me to discuss in more detail about the "body of literature". But that is not the intent of this summary style article. Vachanas are written even in the 19th century. Do you expect me to write about these poems spanning 700 years.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect it to be more focussed on the body of literature - yes. If this was not your intention, then the article needs to be renamed. Even so, draw the line between too much detail, as an article on each body of literature could probably deal with this. Summarize. Note the most important points about the literature, about its authors, and sure, influences to an extent. The preoccupations of each body of literature could also be examined in more detail. Coming back to this section of Vachanas, I still find it obscure on several areas. The article now says that some of the followers of Veerashaivism wrote Sharana Sahiya. Can the name of some of these followers be given (even in a separate article)? Are there no non-followers of Veerashaivism who authored Sharana Sahitya? Does the Sharana Sahitya only deal with the praises of Shiva? If not, what are the other themes? Again, there are so many things that a reader would be wondering about due to the article's failure to discuss such important parts clearly. Instead of going into the unnecessary details, focus is needed on the important bits, or the necessary details. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dk Reply I dont think the article needs to be re-named. For such an event, there would have to be a majority concensus opinion among all reviewers. Ncmvocalist, "Some" of the poets have been named. Please read the sub-section carefully starting from Basavanna, Allama Prabhu, Devara Dasimayya, Chennabasava, Prabhudeva, Siddharama (1150), and Kondaguli Kesiraja are the best known among more than 300 poets (called vachanakaras) in this genre. I have not heard of any non-followers of the faith who have written these poems. If I do come across such info, I will certinaly add it. If the literature deals with any other deity other than Shiva, I shall surely bring the info here. Again, the line you are taking is repeatedly going into details on Vachana poetry and "it is not the intent of the article to dwell in those details". These details should be in the Vachana page.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• The article shouldn't focus on the biographies of all of the possible people and the details of all of the events that may have been so distantly and closely related to the literature's actual creation and existence. There are separate articles on these periods and people - some parts need to be summarised, but other parts (several of which would be in this article) are entirely unnecessary for the purposes of this summary-style article.

DK Reply A general discussion on literature such as here should be about poets, what inspired them, a line or two on what they wrote, who patronised them, what influence they had on the history of the literature and such. The actual details of the literatures are better off wikilinked. This has been done to various classics such as Kavirajamarga, Vaddaradhane, Adipurana, Ajitha purana, Vishnu Purana, Yakshagana, Vachana, Haridasa Mohanatarangini, Mankuthimmana Kagga etc.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. (Staying on the example), Vachana is a form of writing. So what? This article is about Kannada literature, and the bodies of literature that make up this name. The actual details of the literatures are important in an article under the name Kannada literature. If you want to speak about the History and development of Kannada literature, then this should be the respective title/name of the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply As I have pointed out time and again, these details should be in their respective sub-articles.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• So overall, while the prose is exceptional at times, this standard is not maintained throughout the article. But more importantly, the expression may need to be tightened as the article is of an inappropriate length - it delves into unnecessary details (with biographies and events), losing focus off of 'Kannada literature' the topic. Kannada literature itself is formed from the various bodies of literature (as indicated in the lead section), and these bodies should form the various subsections. I note that it was a good idea to set the article up so that each body of literature appears in chronological order (of its coming into existence), but the article should focus on each body of literature that forms Kannada literature - not on other unnecessary details which are summarised in biographies and certain periods for example. The editors of this article may therefore need to partially change the approach taken on this article to remedy this issue. I feel the article primarily fails on criterion 4, as it does not focus on the topic and goes into unnecessary detail. This involves the actual content, as well as the prose in criterion 1a. It is for the reasons above, that I cannot endorse this article as WikiProject India's (or indeed, Wikipedia's) best work. I therefore oppose/object. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The article will continue to be copy edited, but I do feel that the article is meant to focus generally on literature, and not on the depths of literature itself. The suggestions you have provided are better off in articles such as Vachana, Haridasa, Virashaivism, Purandaradasa etc. This article's intent is to generally introduce the reader to Kannada literature without going into details of the literature itself. However, I do appreciate your effort in going through the article, or atleast the section you have discussed here.thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The suggestions made here are are not so relevant to those articles. The article on Vachana (for example) should have an entire section devoted to its development, another section on its themes, another section on its authors and so on and so forth. This is detailed. This article, in the subsection on Sharana Sahitya, should summarise the most important and relevant details from the actual body of literature, as well as the article on Vachana. I find that important details have been omitted, meaning the article is somewhat obscure in certain areas. This is a result of unnecessary details that deter the focus of the article, without treating each body of literature (such as Sharana Sahitya) as proportionately as it should. There are certainly several articles of this length, some of which who are appropriate, but this is by far, not one of them. Again, I cannot endorse this as WikiProject India's (or indeed Wikipedia's) best work and therefore oppose/object. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Ncmvocalist, a I have mentioned earlier, majority concensus is not there for such drastic changes. Thank you for such a detailed analysis, but I sincerely feel your suggestions are better of in sub-articles. Thank you for your detailed analysis of Vachana Sahitya. If there are areas where you specifically think prose can be imporved, without going into detals on literature, feel free to bring it up and I will clean it up.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dineshkannambadi, on this issue, there is no majority consensus - if any. The criterion is clear, and there is no validity for the inappropriate length, due to unnecessary details. Merely being well-written and referenced (which is what the supports have been primarily based on) does not satisfy the requirements of an FA on its own, as this does not address what content has been included and what content has not been included. It is as such, vague on several important details, and has a facade that it satisfies criterion 1b.

Unless this article has been incorrectly titled (in which case, a new FAC would be needed), the article is about Kannada literature generally - not solely the history and development of Kannada litearature. As per the lead, Kannada literature embodies various bodies of literature written in Kannada, that have spanned over several hundreds of years. While it is entirely appropriate to go through each body of literature in chronological order of these years/periods, a reader would not make such a presumption that this article deals solely with the history and development of Kannada literature alone! It is important to discuss the history and development of Kannada literature in this article, but not at the expense neglecting several other major facts and details about the actual literature. There is also undue weight being given on certain persons in various sections, and this article fails to summarise the respective sub-articles proportionately. This is clear in the Vachana and Vaishnava sections, among others. Criterion 1d may therefore not be satisfied either.

Overall, this article fails to maintain the standard expected of FA's both by the assessment department of WikiProject India, as well as Wikipedia itself. FAs exemplify and represent Wikipedia's best work - this article in its current state is (still) not, and therefore, I cannot endorse this as an FA, and my strong oppose/object still stands. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

comments by user:Tony1

Oppose—Sorry, fascinating topic, and well on the way, but I agree with the reviewer above—the prose quality falls off after the lead. Here are random issues. Suggest you withdraw and work on it more, then resubmit.

• It's a very ugly visual experience to confront a row of square-shaped characters, all exactly the same, after what they represent has (presumably) been romanised in the linked "Kavirajamarga" word. The only reason for including non-roman script is if the characters are useful for experts in conducting, say, web searches, or if the identify of the item may be in doubt and the original script might help those who can actually make sense of the script. This is rare among our English-speaking readership. In any case, it's much better to sequester all non-roman-script items in a glossary at or towards the bottom of the article; there, it's even more useful for experts and doesn't clutter the text with what are for almost all readers meaningless symbols.
• "mention three poets as being eminent among their predecessors"—spot the two redundant words.
• "2nd to 7th century"—plural? Same for subsequent. Tony (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Actually Tony, it's common practice (if not MOS dictated) to include the native scripts in articles where the subjects are related to non-English languages. It's not the author's fault that your or my browser is not properly configured. - Taxman ^Talk 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I have requested for copyedit help from the wikiproject:literature and the league of copyeditors.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

comments by user:Taxman

• Oppose. 1) Too many short paragraphs. They highlight areas that either need to be expanded into a full idea, merged with related material, or are not important enough to justify inclusion in the article.

DK Reply All the sections included are of primary importance to Kannada literature in general. They are enlarged in the sub-sections, sorted keeping in mind chronology and context, the "classical era" and "Mystic literature" being good examples.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Then one of the first two options I gave needs to be followed for the short paragraphs. - Taxman ^Talk 03:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I have identified two short sub-sections that need to be merged; the "Kaivalya" tradition (in the Mystic literature section) and the Pragatshila genre of modern literature. If you feel I have left out anything, please point it out.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

2) There just doesn't seem to be enough critical analysis. I don't think it necessarily requires a separate section as in African American literature, instead it can be integrated throughout, but there is simply not enough. I see virtually none in the entire modern era section. And I'm not just talking about negative criticism, I'm just referring to analysis. Impact or lack thereof, differences from other forms, traditions, languages, etc.

DK Reply The intent was not to analyse and compare with other literatures, but just report briefly what has been written in Kannada. There are over 20 official languages in India, how can one literature be compared against so many, in a summary style article and with what yard stick? Isn't just reporting a summary of 1500 years of writings a big enough task for one article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to compare against each other language individually, but there does need to be overall analysis. A report of what has been written isn't enough for a FA, we need coverage of all important aspects of a topic and for literature, critical analysis is one such important aspect. How Kannada literature has impacted (or hasn't had much impact on) other literature is one facet of that that I mentioned as an example. - Taxman ^Talk 03:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Ok. The influence of Sanskrit on Kannada in the classical era, influence of Kannada Vachanas on the Haridasa (both from Bhakti literature) and in turn their influence on the devotional movements elsewhere in India, the impact of Kannada dramatic literature on the later Marathi theatre are areas I can certianly write about.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3) I can't figure out what the Appreciation section is trying to do. First it is disjointed and talks about a different time frame from the previous section without easing the reader in and explaining what the section is for. Second nothing justifies why the material that is there is and what is cohesive about it. I apologize that I can't offer help fixing these issues, I both know nothing about the subject and I'm short on time. - Taxman ^Talk 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply The "Appreciation" section simply meant to round off what the article as a whole discussed and how people view its literature today, highlighting four issues a) the extinction of early literatures written in native metres b) The use of Sanskrit models and metres (among available writings) in the classical era c)the switch to native models and metres in the later medieval era d)the growth of modern literature under the influence of the English.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the section needs to make that very clear, what it covers, why, and how it fits in with the rest of the article. Currently it's a jolting transition. - Taxman ^Talk 03:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Taxman, I will make every attempt to satisfy each and every point you have put forward, in the coming days.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: It's true that prose has some issues but it will be ironed out in no time. Further it is definitely one of Wikipedia's best. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Comment I am in the process of adding the info requested by user:Taxman. This will take only a few days.thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support:It satisfies [WP:FA]] requirements. No major issues Taprobanus (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Taxman: You say it's common practice; I say it appears to be useless unless the readers can understand it. Is it an ornament? Tony (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - It is not really useless, because for those readers who know that language, it will be clearer how the article name is written and pronounced in that native language. This is a common convention followed across all Indic-related articles, and is not any specific to this article. If an indic-related article is not equipped with native script, then its talk page would be marked with {{IndicL}} template, and would put that page into Category:Articles needing Indic script or text. More information can be found on this page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic). Please Note: (Per that page): The term Indic is used here to refer to names and words that originated in one of the languages of the Indian subcontinent, and that are written in Brahmi derived scripts.

• Oppose as above. Hardly any reference to Muslim Kannadiga authors like Sara Aboobacker[3] or Ibrahim Sayeed[4]. No reference about influence of Tamil and Telugu languages on literary styles. Anwar (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply You are wrong. Influence of Telugu literature on Kannada and vice-versa is mentioned here which I have copied and pasted. Please read the article fully and carefully before concluding.

and the akkara which came to be adopted in some Telugu writings.[42][45][46] Such interactions with Tamil literature are however few and far apart.[47]

Interaction between Kannada and Telugu literatures, a trend which had begun in the Hoysala period, increased. Translations of classics from Kannada to Telugu and vice versa became popular. Well known bilingual poets of this period were Bhima Kavi, Piduparti Somanatha and Nilakanthacharya. In fact, so well versed in Kannada were some Telugu poets, including Dhurjati, that they freely used many Kannada terms in their Telugu writings. The notable writer Srinatha even called his Telugu, "Kannada".[91]

Owing to these contributions, he has earned the honorific Karnataka Sangeeta Pitamaha ("Father of Carnatic Music").[105][106] In the 18th and the 19th centuries, this music was popularised in modern Tamil Nadu by the Trinity of Carnatic music while its intrumental form made notable progress in Mysore.[107][108].

BTW, this is a summary style article. The Muslim authors you quoted are not considered the greatest of Kannada writers. In fact none of the books I have refered to, even mention them as being the greats of Kannada literature, though I am sure they are popular. Perhaps they could be included in Modern Kannada literature. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The relationship between Kannada, Telugu and Tamil can be summarised thus: Telugu (born circa 1000BCE) was the daughter of Tamil while Kannada (born circa 1CE) was the daughter of Telugu. The article ignores these hard facts and overamplifies Sanskrit lineage. I am not sure what is great in your vocabulary but be advised, Sara Aboobacker has received many prestigious literary awards, such as the Karnataka Sahitya Akademi Award, 1984; Anupama Niranjan Award, 1987; Rathnamma Heggade Mahila Sahitya Award, 1996, etc. The Library of Congress has acquired eight of her works. Ibrahim Sayeed was a obvious pioneer who produced the first ever known Kannada translations of Middle Eastern literature. Incase you are unaware, Kannada world is larger than Kannada Hindu world. Take a look at Tamil literature. It includes section on new media like blogs in addition to print media. If you think this article is merely a summary, then it means it is not a FA candidate yet anyway.Anwar (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply Anwar, your personal opinions about which is the mother or daughter of which language is not important in this FAC or to the article. If you can prove your statements with hard sources, citations and references, it would bring much value to a different FAC. As such, this article is about "literature", not "birth of Kannada language". Secondly, about Sara Aboobaker, there are dozens and dozens of Kannada writers who have won numerous awards, just to name a few award types: Kabir Sanman, Tulasi Sanman, Nrupatunga Award, Kendreya Sahitya Academi award, Sahitya Academi award, Sangeet Natak award etc etc etc. There simply is not enough space to include them all here. Sorry.

Regarding your other comment Kannada world is larger than Kannada Hindu world, I will assume you made this in good faith but ignore it. The article covers Jain literature extensively, which is "not Hindu". Jain, Veerashaiva and Vaishnava literature are the main components of Kannada literature and have been discussed here.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns I think the first 3 paras clearly overstate the facts. Is there not a difference between literature and mere "writing" somewhere? That too evidences of questionable merit? It is not that I want to oppose, but when facts are so compromised and overstated, it is hard to support. A language can be as recent as 300-400 years, but it is important to state and discuss the "literature" and its merits. I think this is not the case here. If the article approaches the topic with factual material rather making some extraordinary claims, it can at least become a good article on the subject. --Aadal (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

DK Reply I am sorry but I dont understand your comment.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rejoinder concerning the non-Roman script at the top: Considering the small fraction of readers who can indeed understand the script, its appearance right at the top, where is clutters, and the fact that some browsers render it as a row of blank boxes, why not create a "Glossary" at the bottom, where you can list all of the key items that would be of assistance to those specialists who understand the script. That way, both needs (to avoid meaningless clutter for most, and to provide meaningful information for the few) can be satisfied. Tony (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)