Wikipedia:Featured article review/Vijayanagara Empire/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC).

Vijayanagara Empire

 * Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history,‎  WP Karanatak, ‎ WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies.  Thanks! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate  Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
 * For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
 * Source:FA
 * "Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"


 * Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
 * "Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.


 * Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
 * "There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)


 * Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by . Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have tred to focus on the period had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * *Citations needed
 * MOS:SANDWICH
 * Check punctuation on MOS:CAPTIONS
 * I still had to correct these. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have fixed some of the dash problems; please be aware of the difference between hyphens and WP:DASHes.
 * MOS:SAID (notes that ... ).
 * Still present, "Vanina notes that within the warrior Kshatriya class ... "
 * There are considerable duplicate links: you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt to review if all are necessary.
 * Check throughout for WP:OVERLINKing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1023538575&oldid=1023537622
 * There are HarvRef errors.


 * I will start working on this from this weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as Sayanacharya, yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing
 * Faulty endashes, need to be corrected througout: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=1023537622&oldid=1023537354
 * Faulty p vs. pp, please check throughout https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijayanagara_Empire&diff=prev&oldid=1023537354
 * Further reading should be alphabetical; are all of those necessary, and should some of them be used as sources? (FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so Further reading should provide info that cannot be incorporated into the article.)
 * I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment after a quick skim, I think this article is close to "Keep" status, but there haven't been substantial edits since mid-May and Nikkimaria's call for an update was unanswered. Some of my concerns include a "Further Reading" section that should be incorporated into the article for comprehensiveness, the history section should have subheadings, and the Alternate Name section is very short. If editors are still working on this article, please comment below and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982) [1921] is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My opinion on "Further reading" sections in featured articles is that they should be rarely used; if the source isn't good enough to be included as a reference, it shouldn't be recommended to readers as a place to get further information. Based on your analysis, I would support deleting them. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. CMD (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments from Z1720

Consider me a non-expert. I conducted a copyedit of the article, so please review my edits to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.
 * It is unusual for an article to have citations in the lede. Are they necessary? Since info in the lede is expected to also be in the body of the article, we can assume that the information will be cited in the body of the article.
 * "the empire's power and wealth." Can this power and wealth be described a little bit? For example, were they powerful? How wealthy were they?
 * "literature to reach new heights in" Can we describe this a little more? This also sounds like an idiom.
 * The "Alternate name" section is really short. Can this be combined with an "Etomology" section explaining the origin of the empire's name?
 * The "History" section should be broken up with subheadings
 * "Differing theories have been proposed regarding the origins of the Vijayanagara empire. Historians propose two theories." Are there just two theories, or a variety of theories? One of these sentences can be removed.
 * "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras, B.A. Saletore, G.S. Gai, William Coelho and Kamath in (Kamath 2001, pp. 157–160)" why is it important to name these people who support this theory, especially when some of them don't have wikipages and are possibly not notable? This origin story has four references, one of which is this footnote, which seems like WP:OVERCITE.
 * "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." What information was uncovered in this information? Either delete as it is not needed, or put it at the beginning of a paragraph that describes how we know information about the empire.
 * "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in " I am very confused by the origin story of the empire. Is everything above this line chronological? From my perspective, the first paragraph explains two origin stories, the second paragraph then talks about how the regions in the empire were raided by Muslims in the north, which I think happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? Then the third paragraph explains the Kampili empire, which I also assume happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? This should be rearranged so that it is chronological.

I'm going to pause there, because I think this is a lot to work on. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the citations, such as their pastoral origin and extent of empire were added after some edit warring, though I can't recall when exactly. Removed a couple of citations.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The 'empires power and wealth' has been described succinctly in later sections such as the "History" and "Economy" sections. All that has been merely summarized in the lead with a single phrase. Is there any need to describe that in the lead in detail?Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have extended an existing line to describe its territorial reach. Its wealth is not a single physical quantity such as gems and precious stones but rather its vibrant economy which lead to construction of numerous fortifications, temples and monuments across south India and patronage to fine arts etc, none of which would have been possible without sufficient wealth. This is already explained in the last couple of lines of the 'History' section and in more detail in the economy, literature and architecture section.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Explained "fine arts and literature reached new heights" by naming specific (but not exhaustive) list of new genres of literature that gained popularity in this period. "..... such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, novel, musicology, historical and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form". To get a full idea of all this one has to dwell on sub-articles listed such as Vijayanagara literature in Kannada (also a FA) Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This list is a great addition. Can we change "novel" to "fiction" and "historical" to "historiography"? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras..." All historians cited here are notable. Just because they don't have wiki pages as yet does not mean they are not notable. Their names have been moved into footnotes precisely to ensure there names don't clog up the article. Only those readers who are really interested can refer to the inline citation and do further research if they want to. Just my opinion.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Added few more links for notable historians. Their names are very important because this is by far the most contentious issue for those who have been following this article over the years.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "The "Alternate name" section.." Not sure how to handle this right now but the fact is in most books I have read on Vijayanagara empire, the authors use the terms "Karnata empire" or "Karnataka empire" along side its popular modern name. I have touched upon this in the section on "epigraphy".Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think an etymology section would be good to add. If people living in the empire at the time called it something else, it would be worth mentioning and describing when historians assigned a new name to the empire. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The "History" section should be broken..." Please go ahead and split it. We can then make adjustments if necessary.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved the main templates at the top to their subsections, combined "Origins" with "Muslim invasion" into a new section called "Background and origin theories" (to put the information chronologically and avoid a one-paragraph section) Changed "Birth of an empire" to "Early years" (as the section starts with the empire having already been formed, so it is not about its birth per se), Changed "Empire at it's peak" to "Empire's peak" for succinctness. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era..". I moved this line to the end of the "history" section. Is that okay?Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll check it when I get to that section. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue I raised above, of pipelinks and inconsistent naming, remains in the article. I would suggest it is addressing it would help Z1720 in their reading. CMD (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks CMD. I will take a look during my copyedit. Hopefully, the restructuring will address these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing copyedit: I'm going to pause there, but so far I am deleting lots of editorializing statements like "astute general", "his able governor" and wikilinking names. Can someone readthrough the whole article and remove editorializing statements like these and help with the wikilinking? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE." to "The Vijayanagara Kingdom was founded as a successor to the Kampili Kingdom in " as the former was using an MOS:IDIOM. Can you check to ensure the new sentence is verified by the source, and if not change it to more accurate information?
 * Rectified with citation.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the Battle of Raichur fit into the empire's history, and can its hatnote be moved to the top of its section?
 * Belongs to 1520 war of King Krishnadevaraya with the Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1520 A.D.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "("master of the eastern and western seas")" What language is this translated from, and can it be put as a note?
 * The source must be an epigraph and the language is Sanskrit.Purva-east, Paschima-west, Samudra-ocean/sea,Dishavara-master of. Not sure how to put it in a note. Do you mean citation footnote?Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One option is to use Template:Efn
 * "Italian traveler Niccolò de' Conti wrote of him as the most powerful ruler of India." This is great information for Deva Raya I's article, but I don't think its necessary for this article and can be deleted.
 * Deleted this line.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ", such as in 1436 when Sultan Ahmed I launched a war to collect the unpaid tribute." I don't think we need to include this example of a tribute war, as it is not actually linking to the war and its unclear why this war is highlighted while others are not.
 * Removed part of that line.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Deva Raya II (called Gajabetekara)" Who called him this?
 * Epigraphs mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "By 1436 the rebellious chiefs of Kondavidu and the Velama rulers were successfully dealt with." How were they "dealt with"? What was the consequence of their rebellion?
 * The rebelling chiefs were defeated and made to accept Vijayanagara over lordship.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "Contemporary Persian ambassador Abdur Razzak attributes" Does Abdur Razzak have a wikipage?
 * Yes. Abd al-Razzaq Samarqandi. Added link.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "After a few years of tranquility, wars broke out with the Bahamani Sultanate in 1443." What was the result of this war?
 * Some victories and some defeats in a series of low intensity wars, mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can this info be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "He later defeated Bahmani forces and recovered most of the empire's earlier losses." Is there more information on this? A battle perhaps?
 * Usually if there is a battle of attrition, such a situation one cant expect a specific instance to be gloried.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, do you mean that this is not notable enough to have more info in the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there was one Hindu Kingdom and five Sultanates that were vying for control over the entire Deccan for about 250 years. There were many battles won and lost on both sides, some more important and some not so, based on turning points in history. Its unrealistic to go into details of all battles.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In most cases I have updated the info into the article based on each of your questions and concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I realized that my comments are going to be numerous. In an effort to keep this FAR short, I am going to continue posting comments and questions on the article's talk page here. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will take a closer look at your comments in the talk page over the weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have issues with the content. Please keep this FAR on hold for a few more days. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: work got delayed because of people's schedules but I hope it picks up this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for or another editor to address concerns I left on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I addressed your concerns a few days back and left responses on the articles talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry I missed that! I will take a look at it in the coming days. If I don't respond by next week, please ping me on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Made updates yesterday based on comments on article talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look into the remaining concerns most probably this long weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Working on the remaining concerns. Will finish in a day or two.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pied Hornbill, is this now done? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There was one concern that Z1720 had, that is the portion on "caste system" in the section "Social life" was too long and could be trimmed or merged. But I expanded it in the first place because there was a concern that it was too short. I can take a look at it again shortly when I have time. Otherwise I have dealt with all the concerns mentioned in this FAR.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The caste system is currently part of the "Social life" section. Is there a way to split that section, perhaps putting the explanation of the caste system in its own section? This might solve my length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What issues are outstanding from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at all deeply into the revisions, but I note my specific example of a piping issue from my comment on 8 May 2021 is unaddressed. CMD (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like it was addressed. Only reference made in the bibliography are the introduction (authored by the editors themselves) and sections by individual historians. Did I misunderstand your concern?Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a general comment on clarity regarding prose and piping, using Sayana as a specific example of an issue. Given that specific example remains in place, it is likely others within the general comment remain. CMD (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would hate it if your efforts resulted in a delist. Are you still interested in fixing up the article? I think this is salvagable and I'm willing to help. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi all. Sorry I was out of the country and just got back last night. Lets see what we can do from this week onward.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please list further improvements you want. This has been going on for months with no one else interested in fixing the article, least of all the user who brought this to FAR.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

could you please summarize any issues remaining? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article uses some harvnbs and some sfns for citations; one ends with punctuation, the other doesn’t, so citation is inconsistent. Which is wanted?
 * Is is part I and part II, or Part I and Part II in citations? Right now, we have a mixture.
 * There is considerable MOS:OVERLINK (I left a few sample edits, but it is a lot to fix). user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review duplicate links (some are useful, but not when occurrinig just sentences apart).


 * I nominated it for FAR based both on the previous comments (comprehensive/well-researched) as well as inconsistent citation style; I'll only take responsibility for the latter, but since you were kind enough to look already... it's still at issue. Izno (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have very little experience with citation types and styles and will be dependent on you guys to improve that.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, the first thing is just for you all to look at the differences in formatting between the harvnbs and the sfns, and decide which you want. I can (although time limited due to Thanksgiving) help with making them consistent if you opt to switch to all sfns, but I have never used harvnbs— kind of a neophyte myself in this area. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for having dropped this midway. I know the article was expanded during the FAR so give me a couple days, I'll take a look at the comprehensiveness/well-researched part. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Compare this section with Battle of Talikota (drafted by me.) This is far from a FA. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay so.. I am sorry to say this but the article needs a re-write. There are some fairly serious sourcing issues here.
 * Nilakanta Sastri 1955 (38 out of 176 citations) is definitely obsolete. It's a tertiary source largely based on colonial period historiography.
 * Kamath 2001 (36 out of 176 citations) is likely a fringe source, the author is a supporter of Indigenous Aryanism. In addition, it's another tertiary source which attempts to recount the history of Karnataka from "pre-historic times to the present". Why not use sources which directly address the topic? This issue exists with otherwise reliable sources in the article, many of which are tertiary sources featuring a simplified account of a "History of India/South India/Karnataka" that only briefly touch upon the subject.
 * Shiva Prakash 1997 (4 citations) is a primary literary anthology being used to source facts in the section on religion.
 * Rice 2001 (3 citations) is very obsolete. It's a reprint of a 1897 Gazette. Lewis Rice was a civil servant from the colonial period.
 * Mahalingam 1940 (3 citations) is again an obsolete source.
 * Sewell 1901 (2 citations) is an obsolete source as well. This is colonial historiography 101, Robert Sewell was a civil servant much like Rice.
 * Karmarkar 1947 (ref 30) is again an obsolete tertiary source based on colonial period historiography.
 * Rebel Sultans: The Deccan from Khilji to Shivaji (ref 53) is a popular history book written by a doctoral student.
 * Subhash Kak's History of Science and Philosophy of Science (ref 166) is fringe by all accounts. Kak, who has no training in history, is quite well known for making some extraordinary claims about Indian History.


 * In the end, at least 89 out of the 176 citations are to unreliable sources let alone high quality reliable sources. That said, there are some high quality reliable sources present in the article but for some reason they are barely used? For example, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara is a secondary source entirely about the subject but is cited on only 3 occasions. Though of course there are others which are not used at all; to give an example Stoker 2016 would have been quite useful for the section on culture. Without even going into comprehensiveness, the article at present is plainly not representative of the relevant literature. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your rejection of these two sources, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and Suryanath U. Kamath is for reasons best described as weak (and hopefully not political). You claimed Sastri is British era though his last book was published in 1975. You claim Kamath is a Aryan theory revisionist (making it a post-British era issue) though it has nothing to do with this article and his last book was published in 2009 and pertained to his empire itself. Please make up your mind whether you are anti-British era or anti-post British era. Both are decorated historians and well respected. A quick look at the other sources you have issues with, they usually appear to be used as an 'additional source' and not the 'only source'. Can we expect you to get your hands dirty instead of sitting on a high perch? I would like to excuse myself from this article now.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not very relevant when they published their last books unless those books are being used in the article. Sastri's work that is being used in the article is a tertiary source that extensively cites the likes of Sewell and Rice. There is not much difference in directly using them from using the book, note also that it's not just the British themselves but also their contemporary nationalist scholarship, that are obsolete now. On the other hand, Kamath's support for a fringe theory does indicate that he may deviate significantly from mainstream scholarship in general; it might have been useful if his book was published by a peer reviewed academic press but none of his works appear to have been. We need both recent and mainstream scholarship, one doesn't have to choose between the two. The remaining listed sources are sometimes cited alongside other sources in the article, sure but not most of the times and in many of the cases, the other cited source is Sastri or Kamath. Take for example Shiva Prakash 1997, where in 3 out of 4 cases it's the sole citation while in the remaining one it's cited along with both Nilakanta Sastri 1955 and Kamath 2001. I would suggest that you take a look at WP:HISTRS. This is a volunteer project, one doesn't need to do anything, I'm just pointing out the issues with the article and at present the article needs an overhaul to be of standards. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 08:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist per Tayi Arajakate's source analysis. I think it's reasonable to conclude that several of these sources are not in fact high-quality RS as required by the FA criteria. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist progress seems to have stalled, has excused themselves from editing this article and Tayi's source analysis will probably mean new sources will need to be sought. Unless someone steps forward soon, I think it's time to let this one go. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delist based on the sourcing concerns above, which seem to be substantial. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.