Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore/archive1

Commentary moved

~~Oppose~~ Comment (Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)) Shouldn't the article have been submitted for a GA review first, especially if its page-name is an issue? Why is there very little by way of qualitative discussions that one associates with literature articles? Why is it enough to mention that so-and-so is notable for this and so-and-so for that? Please read the the last paragraph of my post in the peer-review. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think there is a rule in wikipedia that an artice should go thru GA if it has a naming issue, an issue created by you. Which is why I consulted with other senior wikipedians. Who is the so-and-so for this and so-and-so for that? and I dont understand this comment which has a question mark to it:There is very little by way of qualitative discussions that one associates with literature articles?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was in a hurry and made a mistake; I have changed it to a question. As for GA, I didn't say it should be submitted for a GA review because it had outstanding naming issues, but asked why it hadn't been submitted for a GA review, especially since its page name is undecided. In other words, it should be submitted first for a GA regardless, so that the FAC is not overburdened with issues that would normally be ironed out in a GA, and one of many such issues might be the page name. I can't imagine any one of these so-called "senior wikipedians" making the case that the article should not have been submitted for a GA review first. If they are, you should get them to say so here explicitly and provide the reasons why.

As for what copy-editing this article has had, I am under the impression that user:Michael Devore had bowed out of copy-editing it. See here and especially here, where he adds that the article is not ready for the FAC yet. And user:Finetooth's edits all seem to be punctuation corrections made between 2009-01-02 22:36 and 2009-01-03 00:47. Since both these editors are upright editors, I can't imagine that they would claim that they have thoroughly copy-edited the article in the way that FAs usually are. Who then has copy-edited it thoroughly? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation was just brought to my attention, though it seemed a likely event. Here is my sole statement on the discussion: It is true that in the past few weeks I have not had available the long blocks of free time I need to thoroughly copyedit and review any articles, including Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, for FAC prep—a matter of sustained hours, even days, of work for me. Minor edits are much easier to work into my current schedule, and time-consuming controversy best avoided for now.

In January (or possibly December, I haven't checked) I thought the article was not yet ready for FAC. Suitable preparation may have been done by Dineshkannambadi and other editors for this article since then. I do not know if this occurred, although a number of editors—with writing talents beyond my own—work with Dineshkannambadi during development of his FAC/FA articles. I have not been tracking recent edits on the article, myself. Also, my opinions about featured article candidate quality, both support and oppose, are not always in agreement with consensus here, likely due to my own literary deficiencies. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, I dont think you understood the message I left above. If the reviewers feel the article's current title is good enough, that's fine with me. If majority of the reviewers feel that another title, such as the one before your revert is more apt, that's fine with me too. I dont think the title issue is a overburden on the reviewers. Given the indepth literary nature of the article, I just wanted the reviewers to know the full details of how this article has grown, so they can make a correct judgement based on it. I dont see an actionable item in your comments.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Michael Devore: I would like to thank you for your comment. You are welcome to continue improvements if and when/where you feel necessary and have the time for it. RegardsDineshkannambadi (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to put user:Michael Devore in a spot, however, made his post about the inadequacy of the article (for FAC) on January 19. Since then, the article has been edited on only two days: on February 8, when a dozen minor edits were made by user:Dineshkannambadi, and then on February 11, when a few more minor edits were made after it had been nominated for FAC at 02:44.

I am merely suggesting that claiming that user:Michael Devore and user:Finetooth have copy-edited the article is not entirely accurate. Yes, they have made some copy-edits to the article; however, neither has brought their skills to bear on the article in the sustained manner that FAs ask for. The nominator's language, I believe, lets the latter impression linger.

As for user:Dineshkannambadi's post, I haven't misunderstood anything. I am simply stating that the article should be submitted for a GA review first, as most articles are. Many issues, including that of the article's name, can be resolved there. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Fowler&fowler: The GA process is not a requirement for FAC, nor is it even a recommendation. A logical progression for FAs is research, composition, editing/revision, peer review, more editing/revision, and then FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the GA label there then? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 05:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA label where? BuddingJournalist 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, why does Wikipedia have GAs at all? Why shouldn't everyone submit to FAC without bothering with GA reviews? (And, as counterpoint to that, why have so many FACs been submitted to GAC first?) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the existence of GAs has anything to do with the FAC process. They are separate processes. If people want to submit to FAC without bothering with GA, that's perfectly fine; there are many fine examples of FAs that have not been through GAC and many that have. I would imagine that those who choose to submit to GAC before FAC as a preparation for the more stringent review process of FAC. But again, there is no requirement to do so. BuddingJournalist 18:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) FAs and GAs are not entirely disconnected. You yourself admit that the review process is more stringent at FAC. That means that articles are supposed to have a certain level of competence here; if they don't, and consequently if FAC reviewers end up working on issues that best belong to GAC reviews, everyone's time is wasted. I do understand what the rules are, however, I am suggesting that this article has issues that are best sorted out at the GAC level first. I have added a critique of the last paragraph of the lead (randomly picked as a sample) on the article's talk page. See critique here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how GAs are usually evaluated by one reviewer, I'd like to think that Dinesh covered his bases by having multiple editors work on the article. Of course, this is no excuse for prose issues that may have slipped through the cracks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::Not really, user:DK is really the only one who has worked on it. He's had it peer-reviewed, but that peer-review, whose link he has failed to provide here, is hardly stellar in its evaluations. Not sure about the value of FAs in any case. I just noticed that English poetry, which was made an FA in 2004 as a result of the work of one user, which has largely been maintained by IPs since, and which was demoted in 2007 for trivial reasons, is better written than most current FAs. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Have scratched my gratuitous remarks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP commentary

comment: Are you serious, people? This amalgam of random tidbits looking at FA status? Here is an example of the lack of thinking underpinning this article:

After a break of more than three centuries, the Vachana poetic tradition began to resurface.

Nothing substantial has been said about this "tradition" earlier other than this:

The Vachana poetic tradition was repopularised by some poets while others wrote anthologies and doctrines based on the 12th century Veerashaiva canon.

As if repetition in different wording can elucidate the matter. Mere platitudes and no pith. Ignorant editors can ride their luck at FA too cheaply, nowadays. 59.91.253.73 (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Sandy Georgia and Moni3

The IP (59.91.253.73) who has thrown tags is perhaps the banned User:Kuntan, who makes his appearence to help Fowler on my FAC's. The same IP made appearences on Kingdom of Mysore FAR nominated by Fowler, and admin User:Yellowmonkey immedietly blocked the article from IP edits [1]. The same IP came to help Fowler on Talk:FAR during the FAR [2]. Also, Fowler tagging the article should be considered a form a FAC disruption.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's off-topic remarks from the FAC page

I have moved my off-topic remarks here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

user:SandyGeorgia and user:Moni3, I have now added a new oppose per your earlier comments here or on my talk page. However, in the interests of fairness, please also remove remarks about previous user behavior by user:YellowMonkey. (See his history at FAR). In addition, user:Nishkid64 has merely repeated what has been said before. Please remove those remarks as well. Please also remove the imprecise comments by user:Dineshkannambadi, both in the nomination note and the one immediately thereafer, especially the exaggerated claims of the article being copy-edited by Michael Devore and Finetooth. "Some copy-edits were made by Michael Devore and Finetooth" would be more accurate. Also, the bit about the "well established administrators," etc. has to go. (If those "well established" administrators want to make that point they can do so here themselves.) When you've removed or refactored these comments, please remove this post as well. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey's comments are not out of line. It is acceptable at FAC to point out (neutrally) that the commenter may be unfamiliar with the FAC criteria (or, for other examples, if there is a COI). The key is to be neutral and not attack. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are out of line at that stage in the exchange. All that is required is to reply to the editor's concerns which may, after all, be valid, regardless of earlier history. It is not like the editor was persistently badgering the primary author with his posts. Given that the particular editor is a 16-year old from the Philippines, he might not able to express himself in the best possible way in English. There is, in fact, a case to be made that he has a point, that he is not merely counting the number of sources as his various interlocutors were in that exchange, but rather is speaking to the quality and relevance of the sources. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are there only to assist the FA director/delegate by providing additional information and do not automatically disqualify the editor's opinion from being considered. If you disagree with the practice, feel free to discuss at WT:FAC; these types of comments are not uncommon at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"16-year old from the Philippines" - who? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 22:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Johnlemartirao. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enmity and this FAC

Thanks, user:Moni3, for your comments in the FAC, most of which I have incorporated in my refactored posts. However, one of your remarks has mildly irked me. Contrary to what you seemed to have implied in your FAC post, I don't have any personal antagonism towards user:Dineshkannambadi. Rather, I have antagonism (if that's the word I want) towards all forms of nationalistic or sub-nationalistic POV-pushing. I'm slightly unhappy with your characterization because it reduces my valid objections to the results of some sort of compulsion born of long-standing vengeance. The posts I made earlier this morning on Talk: History of Indian science and technology or Talk:British India are no different from those I've made in the FAC. Please accept my apologies if I have misunderstood what you said. (You don't need to respond to this if you don't want to.) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, consider your position clarified for my edification. As I stated in my commentary on the FAC page, I am only vaguely aware that you and Dineshkannambadi have had conflicts in the past. While I am not particularly interested in how those conflicts came to being, their effects are being represented by language in the FAC that belies the past you have with the nominator. I have had long-term run-ins with editors myself, and know that when I am challenged for the same thing over and again, it quickly turns from the intellectual to the personal, jumping to frustration and neglecting the content in question. I want to make sure your objections are clear to Dineshkannambadi, and not covered with barely veiled comment about him or referencing behavior you have seen from him in the past. --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're spot on there. I resort to the sarcasm to make the frustration or boredom more tolerable. For me, that is; I agree, it's not as entertaining for others. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific points about syntax and clarity

I had thought user:SandyGeorgia had explicitly told us that specific points about syntax, punctuation and the like belong to the article's talk page, not to the FAC. However, it seems that user:Ruhrfisch and to a lesser extent, user:Laser brain, have added such points in the FAC itself. I would like to request them to move their suggestions as well as user:Dineshkannambadi's replies to Talk:Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore (as I have done myself) and leave the FAC space for more substantive points. Such clutter detracts from the bigger issues and their resolution creates an illusion of progress, when in fact the article is merely being tidied up a little. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F&f's reply to Laser brain about tags

F&f's reply to Laser brain

I have placed in-line tags because user:DK has not been responding to my posts. Per SandyGeorgia's original comments, I have been posting issues relating to syntax, clarity, internal logic, and style on the article's talk page and providing links here (instead of cluttering up this space with minor points about prose); however, user:DK has been singularly unresponsive. It took three requests above for him to acknowledge the posts. No harm is done to the article by the in-line tags. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 09:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to all your posts, 1 through 5. There is nothing actionable in post 6 other than saying I am flexible about the title.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, Fowler&fowler. --Laser brain (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to DK's reply above.) Here is the link to my critique of lead paragraph 1: F&f's critique of paragraph 1, which was referred to in my first post in the FAC and dated 22 February. After three requests for responses in posts 3, 4, and 5, user:Dineshkannambadi replied on 27 February with this reply:

Sentence 1: body of literature composed in the Kannada language- Says in what language the literature was written.

Sentence 2: Available? Is that needed? - Removed available.

Sentence 3: Many of the works of this literature are labeled Veerashaiva or Vaishnava (Fowler wrote-You make it sound that the faiths were charitable foundations). DK reply: I believe this was your input, not mine. Please see this [3]

Sentence 4: clarified.

Sentence 5: Secular themes dealing with a wide range of subjects were also written on. Fowler wrote: We were never told that V- and V- were sacred writings--Specified the Vaishnava and Veerashaiva writings were religious.

Sentence 6:Organised Kannada literature flourished for a short while in the neighbouring kingdom of the Nayakas of Keladi--clarified it was written in the court and hence "organised". Improved wording.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an adequate response? For example what does, "I believe it was your point not mine" mean, when all I did in that edit was to revert the sentence to the version that existed before the page name was changed. I have explained the tags in the article talk page subsection: F&f's explanation of the tags. I will be looking for accurate and complete responses. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]