Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)/archive1


 * 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:14, 13 October 2009.

Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)

 * Nominator(s): Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This page was mostly (two-thirds) written on the afternoon and early evening of New Year's Day 2009, born out of the frustration I felt at how the history of this region was being written on Wikipedia. Until a few weeks before I was as ignorant of this history as most of you reading this nomination note likely are. My ramping up the learning curve was greatly helped by the two volumes of the 1897 edition of Lewis Rice's Mysore Gazetteer, that I received as a Christmas present. The writing then sputtered along for a few months until April when I had a peer review in which User:Like I Care and User:Mattisse made extensive comments. User:Mattisse copy edited parts of the article as well. Then, however, the article went cold and hasn't been edited since.

I feel that this is a valuable history and hope that your feedback will make it come to life. What I am proud of even more are the maps and pictures, many of which are unavailable anywhere else on the web. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: (written after user:Fifelfoo's first three posts below) I have used Lewis Rice's 1908 History published in the Imperial Gazetteer of India. In the section Why I am using Rice on the article's talk page, I explain my reasons for doing so. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support excellent work turning the sourcing around! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Decline: Major rewrite necessary. Your sources are completely unacceptable, compare your source reliance to your bibliography. You are reliant on PRIMARY sources necessarily leads to OR / SYN.  Layout hasn't passed basic conformance, Safari fails to render correctly. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fifelfoo both for the support and for the valuable feedback you gave me; thanks also for taking the time to explain things to me! Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which primary history have I used? I haven't used the Gazetteers proper, only the history sections in the Gazetteers.  Those are used all the time as secondary sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your bibliography lists as a "Classical" item, and the age of the source and its provenance, indicate "Imperial Gazetteer of India: Provincial Series (1908), Mysore and Coorg, Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Pp. xvii, 365, 1 map." should be treated as a Primary source. I really cannot see why you're using a government publication from 1908 as your key citation source.  There are other worrying sourcing issues, such as your bibliography entry, "Manor, James (1975), "Princely Mysore before the Storm: The State-Level Political System of India's Model State, 1920-1936", Modern Asian Studies 9 (1): 31–58" being cited in relation to 1565-1760. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its possible that there are some references in the list that have not been cited. But that is an easy fix, I can easily remove them.  As for your first question, it is not really a government publication; well it is, but its history, geography, economics, sections were written by academics.  I am not using the Gazetteer part as I've already stated.  As to why I am using the 1908 publication, is slightly more complicated to answer.  The easy answer is that there is no more modern reliable historiography for certain periods of Mysore's history.  This is not my view, but that of the foremost historian of pre-modern Mysore, Sanjay Subrahmanyam at UCLA, whose papers and books I have used as well.  We have had this discussion on another page before.  I will provide an answer tomorrow when I locate that discussion.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While the academic standards of the British Empire in 1908 varied slightly to current standards, it is incumbent upon you to identify the actual source you are relying on, which includes identifying the Section of the Gazette "History of Mysore to 1760" for example, and, if possible to identify the Author of the section (if indicated in the work, or "well known"). This would have removed a significant proportion of my immediate hostility to the source.  But you are quite clearly over reliant on it, and it sounds like Subrahmanyam's historiography as included in the article terminates in the mid-twentieth century.  Obviously I'm drawn to question: why are you reliant on pre 1950s sources?  This is really going to be a refrain of criticism, despite Subrahmanyam's pre 1950 historiography.  If this is insurmountable then the sourcing issue needs to be explicitly mentioned at the top, even then, moderns quoting classicals approvingly, if the moderns have passed peer / academic publisher review, is superior due to changes in disciplinary techniques. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (I do have to go to bed, :), but let me give you a brief answer now.) I can easily change the IGI cites to include the author's name.  Subrahmanyam discusses the historiography of the pre-modern period in his paper,, which is also now available as a chapter in a later book.  I will provide the book cite and quotes tomorrow as well.  I believe it is available on Google Books.  Until then,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I should add that this is the kind of feedback I'm looking for, so thanks!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) To user:Fifelfoo,  I have now changed "contemporary" and "classical" reference headings to "secondary" and "primary," removed the uncited references, and changed the IGI reference name to Rice 1908. I have also added a section, Why I am using Rice to the article's talk page. Please read it and give me more feedback. I will be busy for the next two hours, but will reply then. Your earlier feedback was very helpful. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»
 * Fowler&amp;fowler's work is excellent. I will continue engaging in a horribly pedantic expert (to the extent I'm a historian, not a historian of "feudal" India) manner on the article's talk page.  Please consider my "Decline" as being soley about ensuring the excellence of this article, and always open to change. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, his work is truly magnificent and I applaud him for his outstanding prose, but the article needs serious wikification. I think this article needs a very very thorough revamp in order for it to read more like a solid reference, rather than a textbook. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry, I just got back.  Phew.  To Fifelfoo: A horribly pedantic expert is what I need, so I look forward to your various critiques on the talk page as well as here.  My interest is more in improving the article than getting an FA star.  So, any and all help will be welcome.  I have to do the alt text first.  I will then respond to your remarks on the talk page.  To Kuzwa: Could you suggest how I might go about doing this wikification and revamp?  Look forward to your reply!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS By the way, what did you mean when you said that "Safari fails to render correctly?"  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to ask why all the images are aligned on the right-hand side of this article, usually they alternate no? Secondly, while using your (please see Map X) scheme, which I will not lie I am quite a fan of, however in the Nayakas of Ikkeri and Kanara trade, 1565–1763 section you use (see accompanying map), this seems a bit vague to me an inconsistent with earlier style in the article. Perhaps finishing numbering all the maps would make this flow more smoothly? Just my thoughts. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (To Kuzwa) Both good suggestions. Will implement tomorrow after I've reduced the number of images.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Safari is a major macintosh web browser. Your pictures spill into (and underneath) the right hand column of the two column references when viewed in Safari. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (To Fifelfoo) Will reduce the images and make them alternate (left/right).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alt text done; thanks. The images need alt text; please see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eubulides, as I say above, I'll be busy for about 2 hours, but will attend to this then.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm starting work on the alt text now. (He says many hours later.) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm done with the alt text. I counted 23 images (I think).  Please let me know if the alt text looks OK and also whether I've missed anything.  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  22:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One image (the black-and-white portrait in the notes section) is missing alt text. I think the layout issues mentioned above could be fixed if some images were shifted to the left. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing! Will take care of that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text looks quite good (thanks). A few comments:
 * Some phrases could be removed as not being that important in the interests of WP:ALT and WP:ALT. These include "in yellow", "(in red)", "in green", "in blue", "in orange, green, and various shades of pink and yellow", "all colored in various pastel shades", "colored in a very light shade of peach and bordered in red", "in dark gray".
 * For maps it's better to say "west of" rather than "left of", and similarly for "(l. to r.)", "left, right, and bottom", "on the left", as per ''WP:ALT.
 * The alt text for File:ColinMckenzieVeejanaggur1801.jpg is a bit long, and contains details (like sky color, clouds, figures in foreground) that aren't that important. I'd shorten it in the interests of WP:ALT, to focus on the main point of the image, namely the ruins. Similarly for File:ViewShimoga1805.jpg and File:Kolar mausoleum1794.jpg. This is not a big deal; it's OK to keep it longer (I'm saying this more so that you don't have to work so hard next time....).
 * Some phrases aren't visually obvious and should be removed as per WP:ALT: "poligar", "his son", "over the millenniums, have been sculpted by the weather", "likely a valet or assistant", "possibly the Holy Quran", "(now Sri Lanka)"
 * Some phrases duplicate the caption and should be removed as per WP:ALT: "(the Wodeyar ruler)"
 * A few WP:ALT: "A black and white photograph of", "is shown", "shows", "This picture"
 * Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Eubulides, I didn't see your post earlier. Thanks!  This is very helpful.  Will implement.  I have to say, I'm beginning to like the idea of alt-text writing (especially after reading your post).  It is a bit like a puzzle, a visual-verbal puzzle in the constraint is brevity (something like, "describe (only) the visual aspects of the picture as completely as possible in less than 25 words"), and I could see myself getting hooked on it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks pretty good now. Yes, it's a bit like a puzzle at first, though one gets the hang of it after a while. Eubulides (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There are also several disambiguation links that need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will fix those soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Three comments.
 * I think you have too many pictures and maps. They overlay the references and are distracting.
 * I have reservations about the article referring to itself, i.e. that it is the first of three parts, and statements like "That, however, would happen after the period covered in this article." I may be alone in this reservation.
 * Should not the spelling be British?

Regards, — mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the spelling and dialect should be Indian English, but I think we can remove some of the tendency of Indian English to go to personality, colour, and extensive ornate description (if that's okay). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Reply to Mattisse
 * 1) Yes, you're right about the pictures.  Let me decide what to cull.
 * 2) You are right too about the "self-reference." Will remove.
 * 3) I feel that the prose is a tad busy (too many details, and some repetition). Will do some pruning tomorrow.
 * 4) I feel there isn't enough summing up. (I'm myself having a hard time keeping track of who is doing what!) Will work on that too.
 * 5) As for spelling, I use US spelling.  We can convert to British spelling, but that shouldn't be too hard.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Fifelfoo) Not sure what difference there is between the "standard" (written) registers of the two dialects (British and Indian). In any case, someone else will have to do that.  Perhaps we can hold off on that for now.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've read on wikipedia, apart from -ise British spelling, Indian academic English has a few less-common (but entirely correct in International Englishes) grammatical constructions, which are acceptable alternatives commonly used in India. The standard International English grammatical constructions are still fine in Indian English (and probably preferred in written academic Indian English).  So the main thing is eventually we go through and -ise / -re the lot of it, to meet the Indian topicality. -ising is probably something to do just before the eventual Good Article review, before going for FA for real. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do this tomorrow. I wonder if there is automated way to do this on Wikipedia (a British English editor which underlines misspellings in red)? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a spell check which will do that. — mattisse  (Talk) 12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, then would you like to do that?  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Replies to Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Mattisse and Dabomb87) I have now Wikified the images to alternate l/r and space them (apart) vertically.  Is the new arrangement continuing to cause problems in your browsers?  I have also numbered all the maps per Kuzwa's suggestion.  As for culling some images, what would be your top 5 (to get rid of)?  Haven't done the last alt-text yet, but flat out of time for now.  "Time you old Gypsy man, won't you ever stop?"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! Responding to your query on unnecessary images I believe File:ColMarkWilks.jpg would be a good candidate for removal. It doesn't seem to be an absolutely vital image in the article and in it's current placement makes the See Also section look slightly awkward. (In Chrome at least) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kuzwa. That's a good suggestion.  Off with his head!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I have now also removed the self-referencing in the lead; in the process, I lightly copy edited it as well. I don't like "pertain" (or "refer" for that matter); perhaps one of you can suggest another word or approach. Will check again in four of five hours. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (To Dabomb87) I have now added alt-text to the last image of Col. Wilks (which might be deleted anyway!) Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 08:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Source comments Refs fine.
 * A whole load of dabs need fixing. See.
 * This "From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India [orientlongman.com]" deadlinks.
 * Hi RB88, I've fixed the dabs and the deadlink. Didn't realize that I could have used toolbox up top myself! Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is entirely a political history, without even the cursory paragraphs on social, religious and cultural etc aspects that often serve to make a political history a "general" one. This is fine, but the title ought to reflect this.  Some of the maps in particular could usefully be put in galleries.  Some image sizes should be fixed - if you have 300px thumb preference set, like me, they overlap side by side, and at the 180px default they are too small.  I don't know if the scans from the 1943 history, like Raja Wodeyar, are really acceptable quality to use in an FA, with the weave of the paper, or whatever that background pattern is, so clearly visible.  Is there really nothing better available?  Are there no contemporary free photos of palaces?    Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Johnbod) Those are all very good points.
 * This is the first of a three-part history of which the other two periods are: 1760–1799, and 1800–1947. The problem we face is that there is very little reliable historiography for this period 1565–1760, and a surfeit of it for the other two.  To be sure, there are revisionist monarchist hagiographies that wax eloquent about the legacies of each ruler, but none of them are reliable, and none cited by modern reliable sources.  (Please see the section "Why I am using Rice" on the article's talk page.)  I am in the process of scouring the sources for a "Social History" section.  Once that is ready, in a few days, I'd like to hear from you and others again whether it passes muster.  If it doesn't then I have no problem changing the page name to "Political history of Mysore and Coorg ...."
 * I will also be moving the "Sources and historiography" section up to Section 1, and changing its title to "Historiographic difficulties," so that reviewers and readers will know off the bat what they are up against.
 * We are agreed on reducing the number of images; I have already asked the other reviewers for their top five candidates for deletion. I agree too that the Raja Wodeyar and other grainy pictures are not FA quality, but those are the only pictures around of the rulers.  (Not sure why they are grainy since the original plates in the book are not.  Perhaps I need to scan them again at a much higher resolution or much lower.)  Although no palaces from that period survive, other monuments do; so your suggestion of replacing the pictures of rulers by those of their "constructions" is a good one.  Let me look into that.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Delighted to put maps into galleries. (I was under the impression that galleries are not allowed in FAs.)  Will try out your image size suggestions too.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Galleries are somewhat discouraged but not prohibited. Please see WP:IG and WP:PIC for formatting advice. Eubulides (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've now removed the grainy images, replaced them with nicer ones, all set to 300px.  Let me know what you think of the images.  The maps are in galleries. I do have new alt-text issues that I will fix next.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Update: As of 12:08 GMT October 2, here is where things stand: Remaining issues:
 * 1) I have increased the size of the images to 300px.
 * 2) The images now alternate left/right.
 * 3) I've put the maps in galleries.
 * 4) I've replaced grainy images of kings, with better images of their constructions.
 * 5) The new images don't have alt-text yet, neither do the gallery maps. I will be adding those soon.  Many thanks to Mattisse, Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Dabomb87, Johnbod, and Eubilides for help with images and alt-text.
 * 6) The page name has been changed to "Political history ..." per talk page advice.
 * 1) It was felt by Mattisse (and I myself) that the prose was too anonymously busy: long lists of links (usually of places), but no context to help the reader.  I am now working on reducing the clutter, adding the context, and, in general, moving  from quantitative formulations to qualitative ones (sourced, of course).  I've finished the first sound of such revision on the lead, and sections 1 and 2. I hope this will be finished before Monday, October 5. This is done now, at least the first cut.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I will be expanding the "Rajas of Coorg" section. Done now.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) I will also be working on a "Assessment of the period" section. Done.
 * 4) I will be revising the "Historiographical difficulties" section and incorporating a few sentences from it into the lead. Done.  Assessment and historiography is now one section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) There are some new alt-text issues (since new images have been added and maps put into galleries).  Will resolve these as well.  If I'm missing something, please let me know.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I hope to have 2, 3, 4, and 5 finished by Thursday October 8.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC).  All issues resolved.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Is there any reason why you are forcing a 300px size for images that are not technical and don't need to be this size? I'm sure it's not against Manual of Style policy, but I think it should be amongst the discouragements for the new slimmed versions of the MoS. If you can't think of a solid reason I would consider just leaving it as thumb (180). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a personal view. With luck, the 180 default will not be with us for long, but in the meantime fixed sizes of 300px are entirely within MoS guidelines. Most people seem to feel 180 is too small, though I agree that in an ideal world with a larger default, fixing would not be needed.  The maps & landscapes  would be impossible to make any sense of at 180; some would say most images are.  Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know it's a personal view. I have no issue with maps and such being of 300px, but otherwise that size seems unnecessarily large. At 300px, the ivory throne image takes up about half the space of that section, and it is entirely decorative; I would rather an image be too small than too large, because at least then it does not affect the text around it as much. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ivory throne is a problem; I was worrying about its size too. What if I reduce all images  to 250px (as a compromise) for now?  You guys can tell me what you think.  Also, I'll try to crop the throne image a little (i.e. its height).  Thanks!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Much improved, especially the ivory throne. I have no further issues, so have my Support, it's a great historical-political article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) All the issues (except additional alt-text, which I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day, and conversion to Indian English spelling, which will be done later) have now been dealt with. I welcome further comments from Mattisse, Fifelfoo, Kuzwa, Dabomb87, Johnbod, Eubilides, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, Rafablu88, and other reviewers. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support all outstanding issues of mine have been dealt with. Looks like a wonderful addition to the Featured Articles. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kuzwa!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Very clearly written, and fascinating. My only question is whether foreign powers (e.g. British, Dutch, Portuguese) had more influence on the political situation than mentioned in the article. — mattisse  (Talk)
 * Thanks Mattisse! As for the foreign powers, it is possible that the Portuguese and the Dutch did (in the 15 and 16 hundreds) and perhaps the British in the early 1700s.  I'll scour the sources more for this.  After 1760, of course, the foreign powers (especially the British and the French) did play a big role in Mysore.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * More comments
 * "A new province named Caranatic-Bijapur-Balaghat, consisting of possessions such as Kolar, Hoskote, Bangalore, and Sira, and situated above (or westwards of) the Eastern Ghats range, was soon incorporated and granted to Shahji as a jagir." - by who? Is this the Mughals?
 * There must be a more precise single link for "Catholic missionaries"

More later. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod! I have clarified the first sentence.  The "jagir" (or temporary gift) land was incorporated into the Sultanate of Bijapur, which itself survived only up to 1686.  I've also provided a better link for Catholic missionaries.  As I say in my edit summary, shame on me for this, since there is entire Wikipedia portal devoted to Indian Christianity!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support' The article is a dense read, which I think is inevitable on this subject, but meets FA standards in my view. Any no doubt rather speculative figures as to approximate populations over the period that occur in the sources might usefully added in the appropriate places, or collected together. It comes as a bit of a surprise that Tipu Sultan had '12,000 families, mostly of city officials' to move to his new capital. Given their wordy titles, I think the way the main sources are referred to in the text is justified. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnbod! You are right about the dense read.  I think it reflects my own dense (incomplete or unintegrated) understanding of this history.  Hopefully, with time, especially after parts II and III have been written, I'll have more perspective and can streamline the contents more.  I'll look for the population numbers.  Yes, the 12,000 families does come as a surprise (even to me when I think about it now) since the picture of the river island town (most likely not drawn to perspective) makes it seem unable to accommodate more than a few hundred.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * The harvnb link for current ref 17 isn't working (I fixed 61).
 * The following refs are duplicated, use a refname:
 * , this includes ref 73. Why is it is parenthesis? Mm40 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mm40, Thanks for noticing the errors and for correcting footnote 61! I've fixed all the other problems you mention, except possibly the first one (current ref 17).  It (along with current ref 16 and 18) are fine in my browser.  It is possible that this error may have been corrected as a result of my other fixes.  If the reference is still not working, please let me know.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * , this includes ref 73. Why is it is parenthesis? Mm40 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Mm40, Thanks for noticing the errors and for correcting footnote 61! I've fixed all the other problems you mention, except possibly the first one (current ref 17).  It (along with current ref 16 and 18) are fine in my browser.  It is possible that this error may have been corrected as a result of my other fixes.  If the reference is still not working, please let me know.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support in general; which is to say, it's out of my field, and I see nothing no obvious public embarrassment.
 * The sentence in the lead:
 * By the turn of the eighteenth century, the political landscape had become better defined: the northwestern hills were being ruled by the Nayaka rulers of Ikkeri, the southwestern hills, a part of the Western Ghats range, by the Rajas of Coorg, the southern plains by the Wodeyar rulers of Mysore
 * is presumably making some distinction by its italics; but what? Are these titles, family names, or simply non-English words (but "Raja"/"Rajah" is an established loan word)? A reader may be able to figure out what is going on with research; but why should she have to? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Good points. Not sure why I had the italics.  I guess it was a somewhat confused combination of all of your reasons.  I've now removed the italics and provided independent wikilinks for "Nayaka," "Raja," and "Wodeyar," so that a reader can instantly figure out what they mean.  If this is still not satisfactory, please let me know.  Thanks for your support!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.