Talk:Sembiyan Mahadevi

Confusing

The article drifts from Mahadevi to the Nataraja cult then to Bharatnatyam and has numerous WP:UNDUE statements like "Indian artists often portray Hindu deities with great attention to arm/hand details to emphasize their omnipresence and omnipotence." etc. What has "Neuroaesthetics" have to do Mahadevi? I have no idea. Visual metaphor is confusing again, suddenly it is proposed that her image is a metaphor. The tone of article is incorrect, unencyclopedic e.g "The result is one anatomically incorrect but sexy goddess... A man cannot stand like that even if he wants to. But a woman can do it effortlessly." etc. I suggest the sections be reorganized to reflect her life and sculptures and adoration separately. An appropriate lead needs to be written, the article has no lead when i first encountered this article and currently I have made a section a temporary lead. I am removing sections I feel are UNDUE (digressing from the topic). Also, I feel the article is about the bronze sculpture rather than the person. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)