# Talk:Murugan Temple, Saluvankuppam

I have rated this article B class; I normally do not give out detailed feedback, but I'd like to do so here.

Images in section 1 can be split up i.e. one of them can be moved to another section, so that the images don't interfere with section headings (WP:MOSIMAGES).
Redlinks should be taken care of; currently doesn't really adorn article.
Architecture section is well developed IMO, but the History section could use expansion.
We could maybe get some more images, and club it with some of the existing images to make a gallery.
Lynch7 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous user has been repeatedly adding deliberate misinformation despite the fact I've reverted him/her twice. Please see this.
In order to prevent such incidents from occurring again, I am explaining here in detail why the edit has been reverted.

"forming the foundations of inspiration for Dravidian architecture."
This phrase is a violation of WP:OR and WP:PEACOCK. Besides, this sentence doesn't make any sense to a reader like me; the only purpose it serves is to fill a few bytes of space.

"It is also believed to be one of only two pre-Pallava Hindu temples to be found in the state on land"
No need to mention this as no older Hindu temple have been found underwater. One possibly older structure is a temple excavated at Puhar but it is still to be determined whether the temple is Hindu or Buddhist.

"Rock inscriptions discovered from the period gave clues to the temple's location."
Redundant. Unnecessary to state such a thing in the first paragraph of the lead while the "rock inscriptions incident" is mentioned in the second pareagraph of the lead.

The editor has replaced every occurence of garba griha with vimana giving the following edit summary - "the sources refer to this Tamil Sangam temple's inner shrine as vimanam"
The editor does not mention what sources refer to the sanctum sanctorum as vimana.  The word Vimana is mostly used to refer to the temple tower and no where to the sanctum sanctorum, atleast, in  none of the refs I've provided it is used in such a context.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 10:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Subrahmanya Temple, Saluvankuppam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'll review this article soon. 
Note: The link checker has found two dead links that need to be replaced.
Regards,  MathewTownsend (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

review
I've done some preliminary copy editing[1] - feel free to revert if you don't like.
There are now three dead links to citations that need to be replaced.
Also Nandi and Frontline (Front line (disambiguation)) need disambiguation.
Once these are fixed I'll complete the review. Meanwhile I'll put the article on hold.  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made a few additional edits which you are free to correct and fixed the disambig problems.[2]
I'm unclear why the last citation has two different isbn numbers, but they both seem relevant. In any case the is an excellent article, perhaps too many citations, but I understand why an editor wants to be careful.
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass! A wonderful article, well written and interesting.

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot :)-RaviMy Tea Kadai 01:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

\\Apart from these, there are five other pillars with inscriptions by the Pallava kings Dantivarman I, Nandivarman III and Kambavarman, the Rashtrakuta king Krishna III and the Chola king Rajendra Chola III.[9]//

One of the pallava kings mentioned here is Dantivarman I. but I hope the name is Dantivarman only. will it be corrected?--Booradleyp (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This site has to be named as Murugan Temple instead of Subrahmanya Temple.  The name of the God is Murugan in Tamil.  Subrahmanya is the Sanskrit name for this God.  I request you to accept my changes in the text and also change to the title to "Murugan Temple, Saluvankuppam".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmaxi (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Murugan Temple, Saluvankuppam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809174458/http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104005113000.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl2222/stories/20051104005113000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)