![]() | Political history of medieval Karnataka is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reply:The attached main articles provide the territorial maps for a readers interest. A decision had to be made whether to clog up the article with maps or add colourful monuments. I choose the later. If there is consensus that maps are better than monuments, I shall be happy to provide that.
Reply: The words "political" and "medieval" were intended to provide that reason. Prior to 4th century, the empires that ruled over the Karnataka region had their power centres outside the region. This is why some historians (K.V.Ramesh, Kamath, Adiga etc) see 4th century as the begining of a political history controlled by empires that ruled from within. Also the 16th century date was chosen with a specific intent. Normally this period onwards, the history of Karnataka and for that matter India is not considered medieval. Also the intention was not to clog up too many post 16th century events (Mysore kingdom, Keladi Nayaka, Maratha invasion, Portuguese rule in coastal Karnataka, British rule, unification of Karnataka etc) into one article. So we (the Karnataka work group) discussed it (not in the peer review) and decided to make it two separate articles.
Reply: The headings are based on citations and opinions of historians. If you have an issue with any of the headings please point them out and we can tone it down
Reply: I am not sure what you mean by "contrary view" and "Karnataka govt. literature". All the schoars I have referred to concur to the citations I have provided. If you know of any contrary views, please bring it to the table and we can add it.
I hope i provided info on what made me write my earlier comments. For all my reservation, i think the articles (incl. all attached & referred articles) are well-written. now it is just the effort to bring it to FA. Kalyan 13:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply-->I shall reply tonight to your comments on the FA page itself so that its visible to all reviewers. Thank you for your quick response and your guidance. Of particular interest is the Krishnadevaraya era and literature which I shall answer in detail tonight when I get home. In the meantime please find time to read the article Vijayanagara Empire Literature as it contains important info on how prolific Kannada literature was, along with Telugu and Sanskrit. Unfortunately, some historians focus on one angle which is why its important to get information from many scholars, which is what I have done. Thanks Dineshkannambadi 14:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Too much pictures, creating a lot of whitespace below the references. How about putting most of them into the Wikipedia:Gallery tag? Shinhan 15:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Reply This is a featured article. Gallery not recommended for FA's. Also Gallery images throw of the reader with no context. Dineshkannambadi 15:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
How about just deleting some of the pictures then? The original complaint is more than legitimate: this article has way too many pictures and it's ruining the space environment. It is absolutely silly for a 48 kb article to have nearly 20 pictures. 20 pictures is virtually silly for any article, but for one that's 48 kb, it's even more so. UberCryxic 01:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Each image represents an important architectural/sculptural idiom of each empire. They have not been put there out of fancy. I dont see anything silly about having one map and one image per empire to show the progress of artistic developments. This is what the FA review committe wanted anyway. The article covers 1400 years of history of a region of India. Why should the size be silly now, when it was not so, for an experienced team of FA reviewers? Dineshkannambadi 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. This is an important FA and needs to be understood in the correct perspective. Dineshkannambadi 11:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Political history of medieval Karnataka. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)