Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vijayanagara Empire

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Vijayanagara Empire[edit]

This article has seen a peer review and closely follows the same format as other recent India History related articles. While minor works like fixing the Box, map, choosing right images for each section is still in progress (and will conclude in a few days), the article has seen significant copy edting for content, grammar, balance and has been well cited from well known sources. Please provide positive feed back to enable successful FA review.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 22:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has an impressive list of citations (which is good), but that impressiveness results in a "Notes" section that spans over a quarter of the entire article's length (which may or may not be good). You might want to take a look at recently featured Christopher C. Kraft, Jr., as an example of an alternative way to format the Notes and Reference sections. Basically, the "Notes" contain only a Harvard-style citation, whereas the "References" show a complete list of the individual reference works. This method also keeps the article text relatively clear of reference clutter, which may improve the accessibility of the article to other editors. Just a suggestion. --Plek 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply::Thanks. I will do what I can to cut down on the details in the notes, to reduce clutter. In a previous FA review I was asked to give full details of the citation, its publisher, year, author, etc. So I just followed the same strategy. I understand there may be too many details in many of the notes and I shall cut that down.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply::I have reduced inline note details to a significant degree, maintaining details only where necessary.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have taken care of web reference format.thanks.Dineshkannambadi
Reply Yes. I guess this would be the same Infobox we used for Hoysala. We surely need that box. I am waiting for a new user who showed interest in creating a Hoysala style map to complete the map assignment.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have a small problem of alignment of preceeding and succeeding states. I have asked for help on this.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral Object
  • Copyedit needed: Found a spelling error: luxuray
In progressDineshkannambadi 03:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • History should start with the rise of the dynasty, not mention kingdoms tangentially involved.
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbering: main foe, the Deccan sultanates foe=1, there were more than 5 kingdoms. Change foe to rival
Reply main foe was Deccan Sultanates.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikify Domingo Paes and other proper nouns
Done added many more nouns to wikilink list.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see if you can write stubs for all red links
Done wrote several stubsDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove set pixel width from all images
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours used in the names of the kings are too bright. Use less saturated colours
DoneDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the last three sections there for? The last should be =External links=
removed last few unnecessary sections.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • fought the Gajapatis of Orissa successfully? ...Emerged sucessful against the Gujapatis
CorrectedDineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Main article: Battle of Talikota doing in the middle of the prose. Please remove.
Done moved it where it should be.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An SVG map would be most welcome

Done Thanks to a new user user:mlpkr.Dineshkannambadi 02:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • extremely profitable? How would you quantify that?
corrected.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace hyphens by dashes eg (1000 - 1200 bahares) - to –
Done.Dineshkannambadi 03:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC) =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will attend to these issues tonight. Thanks for the guidance.Dineshkannambadi 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first two decades after the founding of the empire, Harihara I gained control over most of the area south of the Tungabhadra River -- not very useful. How did the empire originate? Start with the origins. Who founded it? begin with such text.Spelling errors still found: adminsitrative, Hereditery Please run it through a spell check. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I have addressed this.Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: I really like this article (probably can use some minor copy editing though). The best part about this article is how well it flows from the previous FA's like Hoysala - making it interesting to read. I wish my history books were quite as articulate. I would really like to see opinions of some other users like parthi who would possibly know lot more about the topic than myself. --Blacksun 09:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have been trying to trace the origins of Kammas living in Coimbatore City - south India. After reading thru your artilce on VijayaNagar empire and the Nayak system introducted by them, I firmly believe that this could have been the beginning of the migration of Kammas into Tamilnady and also Coimbatore. But a close read of the Nayak system of the empire shows more information of the system prevalent in Madurai with litte or no mention of such a system in Coimbatore. But even today we could see plenty of places with name tags ending with Paalayams. So there is a definite relation. But no clear records as to when it all began and how it progressed over the centuries. Can you throw any light on this subject?

A large migration of Telugu and Kannada people into Tamil Nadu happened during the rule of Vijayanagara Empire (the migration of Kannadaigas started with the Hoysala Empire itself), according to Prof. K.A. Nilakanta Sastri. Thats about all the info I can give from my sources. For more details, you may have to read a book more pertinent to the Nayakas of Tamil Nadu. hope this helps.Dineshkannambadi 02:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't it be better to change the last sentance in the intro from the current "The Vijayanagara Empire created an epoch in South Indian history that rose above the politics of narrow regionalism by promoting the ancient and indigenous Hindu dharma." to simply Hinduism. Anyway shouldn't Dharma be capitalized? Arjun 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient and indigenous sounds awkward too. Maybe drop ancient - it does not really fit.--Blacksun 09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dineshkannambadi 11:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks. I will have a more thorough look at it tomorrow and will make my decision then. Right now I am leaning towards support. Arjun 14:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In "architecture", "There are many arches, domes and vaults that betray these influences".Are you sure you wanted to use "betray", or is it an error? May be portray or something else?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article suffers from over-wikilinking at instances. Sometimes the same term is wikilinked multiple times, even when the terms are not placed too far.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Reply-->will be taken care of.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dineshkannambadi 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Very good work. But needs quite a bit of copyediting. Will change to support once the language style becomes easy to read. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 07:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to do more copyediting to change language/prose if you could point out generally where the problems are.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to edit them out at the page itself because trying to list them would be an unnecessary duplication of effort. Primarily I wish that the style of prose be made better. The content and relavent citations are all there. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 17:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Go ahead. One request. A recently blocked disruptive user has been making unexplained reverts. Make sure you look at the history of edits before you start your copy edits each time to make sure your well intended edits dont get tangled up with those of the disruptive user.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose has improved to my satisfaction. Good job. :-) Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 06:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The language has become relatively lucid now, thanks to the copyedits while in FAC. Hope to see more of such comprehensive article on Indian history in the FAC. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very nice, concerns have been met. ~ Arjun 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice work, but I have comments, & may do some language touches myself.
Comments - Lose gap in text between the 2 templates
- sections would be better broken up with sub-headings

Reply I am only following the same format as other recent India history related FA that has been accepted by most reviewers. If you can specify how to better break up the format here on the discussion page, it would be easier.thanksDineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I admit I don't know too much about FA style in particular, but I would add sub-heads as follows:
  • To "Governance", at "on the battlefield" "Military", then "Public works" at "the Capital city"
  • To "Economy" add "Trade" at "When mrchant ships ...." - and maybe others lower down. Johnbod 19:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "republican guard" sounds odd here. Is that what historians call them?

Reply The book says kings "personal army" excluding feudal armies (contributed by feudatories, hereditery clans supporting the empire). So republican guard seemed a close match.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) changed to King's personal army.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I seem to remember that Hampi was evacuated/abandoned after the 1565 defeat, so the Moslems just walked in rather than "attacked". "Tirumala Raya, the sole survivor" - of what? the royal family? the commanders? - should say.

Reply My sources--> dont say "walked in" and Vijayanagara was not evacuated. Some resistance did exist. Tirumala Raya was the sole surviver of the three commanders.will explain on article after another study.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Changed to "plundered" instead of "attacked and plundered" to keep it simple.Dineshkannambadi 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- there was a word half "critical" half "crucial" near end para 1 - I went with crucial, but up to you.

reply either way is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" On the battlefield the king usually entrusted his most capable commanders to lead the troops" - no surprise there then! Must be a better way of putting it.

Reply ok, will look into this.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade: I changed Judea to Palestine (Judea not really used after 400AD or earlier), but Syria or "the Levant" might be better. what is a "camlet", a baby camel?

Reply Palestine is fine.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Reply camlet is a fabric. wikilink in place.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...a focus on decoration rather than sculpture that surpasses that previously in India.." - hmmm - should be painting not decoration I think, but a rather dubious statement anyway imho, given how little evidence of earlier painting has survived.

corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I dont believe the author meant paintings. Because Vijayanagara sculptors used granite, the sculptural work did not finish well. So they used special materials such as pilasters to cover up flaking on granite for decoration and smooth finish. Also the use of animals, both mythical and real in the pillars and columns was for decorative purposes. But will recheck.Dineshkannambadi 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected sentence by user:Mattisse.Dineshkannambadi 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the copyedit - I think no major change of meaning; mostly for style. Johnbod 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - Nice informative article, with a good presentation style. Thanks to the recent copyedits. Would certainly make a great FA. - KNM Talk 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Almost all the notes needs to be rewritten just to be right. Just a few examples:
    • "according to" should never be found in notes, unless your are explicitly commenting on an opinion.
      • Reply-->Thats exactly what is being done. According to xxxx is what I read in the book, so that is what I have maintained.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Anna Dallapiccola in Fritz & Mitchell" is patently incorrect. It means that it is her opinion reported by Fritz & Mitchell, which it is not.
      • Reply -->That is exactly what it is. The book is edited by Fritz & Mitchell and the research part is done by Anna Dallapiccola.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are misunderstanding the use of "in" in academia. her opinion is not quoted by Fritz in Mitchell in their writing. She wrote it, in a book they edited. She is the only one that should be credited. Fritz and Mitchell are not writing something like "Dallapicola (1985) comments that [...]"! Note #30, however, could use a "in," since the research by B.A. Saletore is (apparently) reported by Kamath.
Reply--> I own the book and it says "edited by Fritz and Michell". There are a few chapters in that book that are credited to different historians such Anna Dallapiccola. There are some chapters which are not credited to other historians, so i suppose the credits there go to Fritz and Michell themselves. The book itself was not written by Anna Dallapiccola. In fact it may be said the book is a compilation by Fritz and Michell mostly containing research info by various researchers.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the notes to subauthors of Fritz & Mitchell were correct.
      • Reply-->please be more clear.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've made them worse by using what I complained above about Dallapicola.
    • Several notes should be combined.
      • Reply--> I have been adviced not to combine citations in my previous FA's. I am just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • *Shrugs* Some user have a patent dislike of combined citations, something I cannot understand as they are not known to go around reverting note combination. I won't harp on it.
    • References are mostly wrongly formatted. they should be in "last, first," and they lack italics for book titles.
      • Reply--> I am following the same format as citations in other recent India History related FA's.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which are? I can't believe such, excuse me, unlegible reference soup could pass FA.
    • The Arthikaje are unacceptable. You must point to the exact page that is being cited.
      • Reply-->Arthikaje is a web reference. Hence cant give page numbers, but can be accessed easily with the push of a button.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you can cite which of the different web pages in that index you pick from. Thepagelinked certainly does not provide a source for anything in the article.

Done. Reference URL points directly to page in web reference.Dineshkannambadi 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, my shortening of the notes at best made it clearer that they were wrongly written to begin with, it hardly made them worse.
    • Reply-->I have been asked to provide full info on author, publication, page number, year, publisher etc in each and every citation in previous FA's. Just following the same format.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh dear... Either someone doesn't get citation style, or you misunderstood them. Could you point me to the specific FACs you are atlking about?
You may look at Chalukya dynasty article for instance.Dineshkannambadi 06:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Lepakshinandi.jpg is a patent copyvio as far as WIkipedia is concerned: the original Flickr page states clearly "© All rights reserved". If the author wishes to release the image in the public domain, he should clearly state it everywhere he uses it. As far as wiki's concerned, this is unverifiable.
  • Circeus 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply-->I can replace this with acceptable images. DoneDineshkannambadi 03:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply All citations are written in the format expected and accepted by reviewers in recent previous India History related articles. I was asked to give full details of publication, year etc in each citation. If you dont like the format, please discuss before making major changes. I have answered your points above.Dineshkannambadi 02:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have not gone through the details and style of every citation now, but, as of this version, the citation style looks ok. Mentioning the whole book name and other details in every citation is less soothing to eyes, especially when all such details have been mentioned under "References". Mentioning the details in the first instance, and then just the authorship and page number (and any added detail, if needed) is ok. The "Notes" section is aesthetically more pleasing now. What to you gyus think? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I would like to thank Circeus for showing us a neater way to write citations.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ended up fixing the citations myself. I have to give credit to the writing. I haven't spotted any areas of obvious ambiguity.Circeus 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written article. -- Naveen (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support very informative Indienne 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support The article carries a lot of information and is very well written. Deserves to be FA. Gnanapiti 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Vijayanagara_Empire&oldid=1138474996"