# Talk:Badami cave temples

At some point, when I am ready to start working on this page, I want to rename this article "Temples of Badami" because there are several structural temples of importance in Badami, dating from the 6th to the 11th centuries, built in various architectural styles, in addition to the cave temples. This way I can consolidate all the monuments in this historic town and make the article worthy of a FA or a GA. The structural temples are the Bhutanatha temple, Mallikarguna group of temples, Malegitti Shivalaya, Upper Shivalaya, Yellamma temples etc.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

@Nvvchar: There is a third theory behind the cave 5, which one enters by crawling. This theory is summarized by BV Shetti. It states that the image is neither of Buddha nor of Jaina. Shetti's 1995 publication in the Jain journal Nirgrantha (Vol 1, No. 2, pages 87-91), includes images, which shows the face in a reasonably good condition, which means the damage has occurred in last 20 years. Anyway, worth a read and a few summary sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch Thanks for the editing inputs. You are doing great with your additions. Please add a few sentences from the above reference under cave 5. All imgs have to be shifted to the text part as at the GA stage no gallery is allowed. All sections except the lead should be referenced. I have restored references for Geography section. I will be more text under each cave. You are free to edit. I would appreciate if you kindly double check the refrences and its use. if any reference is not used it can be deleted from the bibliography section. Hopefully we can complete the article by tomorrow for posting first on GAN and later after approval of GA in DYK.--Nvvchar. 04:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nvvchar:: I added the alternate cave 5 theories for NPOV, as well as some sources to other sections. Is there anything else I can help with? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch  Thanks. I would appreciate if you could remove all the duplicate links and also check for capitalization of the numbered caves. I have just done two hours of editing but still many oddities may be remaining. Also, please check references for any dead links. How do you fell about the flow of article? Shall I post it on GAN? Cheers! Nvvchar. 03:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Nvvchar: I cleaned up what I could find. The article looks to be in a decent shape for a GAN review. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch Thanks. I will post it later in the day.Nvvchar. 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some possible occurences of repetition (Disclaimer: I have never visited the caves, but have read a lot about them)

Cave 1
"Ganesha and Kartikkeya (Skanda, Mahasena) ... are seen riding a peacock" : Is Ganesha riding a peacock or only Kartikkeya?
"goddesses Lakshmi and Parvati to the left of Siva ..": they are depicted on the sides of Harihara in the panel, not as separate figures
"The ceiling also depicts Nagaraja, the king of the snakes" and "The roof in the cave has five carved panels with the central panel depicting the serpent Sesha" ... possibly the same sculpture is talked about
Ardhanarishvara is mentioned twice. There is only 1 Ardhanarishvara in the cave, I suppose.
Nandi, the bull, Bhringi, a devotee of Shiva, a female decorated goddess holding a flat object in her left hand are not distinct figures; but part of the Ardhanarishvara panel.
Fergusson says that  Nandi, the bull is a form of Dharmadeva, the god of justice; which seems inaccurate. Also, Dharmadeva is described as a different sculpture, which it is not.
Also, it is ok to James Fergusson (architect)'s book to describe the cave's state in 1880 and contrast it with the present state, but to use it to describe the cave's current state (as the article does) seems to be problematic IMO. --Redtigerxyz  Talk  06:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redtigerxyz: Yes, two Ardhanarishvara if I recall correctly, but I will check. I encourage Nvvchar and you to add sources and revise to address above points. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Possibly, Cave 2 has the same problems: para 2 and 3 seem to be talking about the same sculptures.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  18:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Cave 1 and 3 show Ardhanarishvara (but not two per cave): search for Badami here to confirm. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz Ms Sarah WelchI have addressed most of the issues referred above. But I am not clear about the para 2 and 3 of cave 2 and also on use of text James Fergusson (architect)'s book. I would appreciate if you could sort it out, if needed by deleting some text. Thanks.--Nvvchar. 07:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Badami cave temples/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The article seems a bit heavy on images, perhaps the less professional looking photos, such as the one captioned "Vishnu Badami Caves" could be cut?
Yes, I agree there are too mnay of them. I have removed the img captioned "Vishnu Badami Caves" and also another double img.
There are several paragraphs that end without citations, such as "There is also a fifth natural cave temple in Badami, a Buddhist temple, a natural cave that can only be entered by crouching on all fours." Needs to be checked throughout.
Sorry about it. I have now fixed references at end of all unreferenced paragraphs
FunkMonk Thanks for starting the review. I have complied to the above two observations. I will be glad to comply with any more review observations.Nvvchar. 13:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thank you for the comments. @Nvvchar requested me to address some of the review comments, I will help. (MSW) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems the intro could be a tad bit longer, relative to the overall size of the article.
Lead has been expanded - Nvv
There is room for coordinates in the infobox, so not sure why they're hanging at the top right of the article.
This is a template feature, standardized for wikipedia articles. I don't know if there is a way to move it into the infobox. Found a way. Fixed. - MSW
"in the 6th century the capital of Chalukya dynasty" I'd out "in the 6th century" last.
Done by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"Epigraphy in Kannada language" The Kannada language?
Yes. Fixed. - MSW
In the geography section, you mention which religions and gods each cave is devoted to, but is that really relevant there? Shouldn't it be relegated to the later sections?
Agreed. Fixed. - MSW
Some words are only linked in the intro, but should also be linked in the article body.
Done partly by @Nvvchar, partly by me. - MSW
"identified in the town of Badami‍" What is meant by identified in?
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"The Badami caves complex are part of" Is part of, complex is singular.
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"of yantra-chakra motifs" Could be explained in parenthesis what this means.
Done. - MSW
"The Badami cave temples are composed of four caves, all carved out of soft Badami sandstone on a hill cliff, dated to the late 6th to 7th centuries." Isn't much of this already mentioned in the history section? Perhaps it should be merged with the earlier text.
Indeed. Merged "6th to 7th..." part into history, deleted from Temple caves description section. - MSW
"The cave temples are dated to the 6th to 8th centuries,[20] with an inscription dated to 579–CE.[21] The inscriptions are in old Kannada script." As above. Though you give a different range of dates for each time you mention dates...
Fixed. The date confusion is from dating of individual caves versus dating range for all caves. - MSW
"The cave is about 59 feet (18 m)" You should name the cave (cave 1), as you do in the sections below.
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"with bovine and equine heads" Animal terms could be linked.
Done. - MSW
You should explain who Alice Boner is at first mention.
Done by @Nvvchar, checked by me. - MSW
"multi-headed snake (Nag)" Any relation to Nāga? If so, link?
Indeed. It is related. Fixed. - MSW
Are the caves still used for worship? Do they have any religious importance today?
For now, we don't have WP:RS to include a verifiable statement either way. - MSW
"he culture and clothing embedded in the" Embedded culture? Not sure what this means.
Deleted embedded. Reworded. - MSW
"In 2013, Manjunath Sullolli reported" Which is who?
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"On the back part of this," Since this is a new paragraph, it is unclear what "this" refers to.
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"it is surrounded on the north and south by forts built in later times." There should be no unique info int he intro.
Agreed. Trimmed. -  MSW
Not sure from reading the article, but are the caves themselves entirely man-made, or mainly the various decorations? Could be made clearer.
Done. - MSW
"it is now damaged and missing parts." Why?
The reasons are unclear, and there is a lack of WP:RS to add something. - MSW
"According to Shetti" Which is who?
Added, with source. - MSW
"such as one by John Murray" Who?
Added, with source. - MSW
"by Henry Cousens and A. Sundara"? Who? always remember to present the people mention, we need to know at least their occupation.
Fixed by @Nvvchar. - MSW
"According to Bolon" Who?
Added by @Nvvchar, expanded by me. - MSW
"Cave 5 is a Buddhist cave that has been converted into a Hindu temple to Vishnu." Why so certain in the intro, when the article itself isn't?
Agreed. Trimmed. -  MSW
"described the pioneering designs" Only described as such in the intro.
Fixed. -  MSW
@Nvvchar: I have addressed or verified your recent edits. I have also trimmed and copyedited the expanded lead, which as @FunkMonk states should neither contain new information nor state something different than what the main article with its sources states. If I missed something, or made something worse, please revert/revise/correct. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk Please see all the replies of compliance. Coauthor of the article User:Ms Sarah Welch has also addressed some of the issues. We hope all our corrections and replies are in order. Thanks. Nvvchar. 02:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Great, all looks good to me, so will pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
FunkMonk. Than you very much. Due to a some problem the Bot does not leave a message of GA review on my talk page. Can I request you to leave message on our talk pages of this GA approval?Nvvchar. 01:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how this is supposed to be done manually, though? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be done manually, FunkMonk. The notification by bot is a courtesy, and frequently goes astray for various reasons (in this case because Nvvchar doesn't include both user and talk page addresses in his sig, and in that order, so the bot doesn't have an address it can work with). Since Nvvchar already knows that the nomination passed, there's no need for a courtesy message. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)