Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dineshkannambadi (talk | contribs) at 14:47, 15 January 2009 (→FARC commentary: reply to RegentsPark and Septentrionalis PMAnderson). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kingdom of Mysore

Review commentary

Notified Dineshkannambadi, Sarvagnya, WP:INDIA, WP:HISTORY, WP:HOI,WP:INKN, WP:WPFC, WP:MA

This article was promoted on November 4, 2007. I am aware that a lot of hard work went into the article, however, I feel that the article has some issues of inaccuracy and bias. I'm not implying, even remotely, that the bias was intended, but it nonetheless needs to be remedied. In particular, I feel the article violates three feature article criteria. These criteria are:

• 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• 1(c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations.
• 1(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

I have described the specifics in my post, My concerns (also on the article talk page). If you have more time to devote to this, you may also want to read Information,Summary Style, and Hagiography. Needless to say, this is very much my version of events and reality. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note I am restarting this FAR since it is impossible to make sense of it. All previous information will be moved to the Kingdom of Mysore FAR talk page. Joelito (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Sarvagnya

Content - Apart from the numbing pedantry, semantic pettifoggery and mischievous misrepresentation of facts on user:Fowler & fowler's part, I'd like to know if there is any specific, actionable instance in the article where the information is at odds with a given WP:RS source. If there are any such instances, I'd like to know.

Sources - Sources are only expected to abide by WP:RS - whether it is a FA or GA or stub. This is Misplaced Pages. We have our FA standards and nowhere in those standards is it required that editors should refer to every monograph and book or RS ever written on the subject. In fact, on summary articles, it is safest and a good practice to use standard histories and textbooks which are neither overly narrow in their focus nor overly broad and have stood the test of time. Recent theses and monographs which deal with the details can certainly be used to vet and build-upon/fill-in on the information gleaned from standard histories.

As far as I can see, User:F&f does not raise any specific instance where what the article says is at odds with what his sources (overly narrow or overly broad as many of them are in their focus) claim . If there are any such instances, let's cut to the chase and list out the exact sentences and let what's wrong with them be pointed out on the article's talk page instead of soap boxing endlessly and expecting people to read it.

Article title - Finally, just because the name of the article is "Kingdom of Mysore" does not mean that it has to deal solely with the period when it became a "Kingdom". Pretty much every kingdom in history has had humble beginnings and less than flattering ends and the Kingdom of Mysore is no exception.

The 'entity' which was ruled and 'entities' that ruled between 1399 and 1947 are historically contiguous and it makes perfect sense to have a WP:SS article about it. If it is felt that the article can be titled more aptly, then by all means bring it up on the talk page and build consensus for a move. There however, can be no question of muscling in changes to an article.. certainly not a Featured one.

Hype - I read and re-read the article and I find the claim that the Wodeyars are being hyped is baseless and unsubstantiated. While Haider and Tipu have a section dedicated to them, none of the Wodeyars are afforded any such treatment (including the ones who were the titular heads under Haider and Tipu) and are treated in summary style. Again, if there are specific, actionable instances of "hype", list them out and it can be worked upon.

Abuse of process - Finally, all these issues should be brought up succinctly and in dedicated sections on the talk page. Using FAR to discuss issues which ought to be discussed on the talk page and to try and muscle in changes for which there is no consensus on the talk page is disruptive and an abuse of process. Sarvagnya 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Note Refrain from personal attacks in FAR. Consider this my only warning in this matter. Joelito (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I have a question about the accuracy of the dates of some of the sources, which I am sure can easily be fixed. Some examples:

• The book by Kamath is listed as year=2001, but the oclc and LCCN dates are 1980.
• The book by Shastri is listed as year=2002 but the isbn dates it as 1976.
• The book by Aiyagar is listed as year=2004 but the isbn indicates it was first published in 1911 and a Facsimile edition in 2004.
• The book by Raman is listed as year=2003 but the isbn dates it as 1994.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Raman--->corrected the mistake. In the case of other references, if you open the ref section in edit mode, you will see that I have specified both the original print date and the current reprint which I am using. But for some reason, only the current reprint year shows up. The syntax goes like this: "|origyear=|year=|". If you know how to fix this, please do so. Or I will search around for the correct syntax.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a serious problem and is impacting many different articles. Five parameters including origyear were removed from the cite template on 30 Nov. A discussion about this is here. User:Smith609 is working on restoring it so don't change anything yet. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe you should use the original date, unless the new date of printing is a Revised Edition, that is, the text has been updated to reflect the newer date. The date of a reprint is irrelevant, unless there are changes from the original. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. The Kamath book is a revised edition. The Shastri book says 1955 is the first edition, 2003 and 2005 are later "impressions", which I suspect means reprint. So now the citations and their references are ok.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressed to all The article as such seems fine. It is well referenced. By far, my biggest concern is related to the souvereignity and status of the "kings" who ruled the state between 1565 till 1761. This concern is amplified by the type of sources used by Dinesh, references 7-17, Shama Rao in Kamath (2001), Pranesh (2003), Kamath (2001) and Sethu Madhava Rao in Kamath (2001). Stein, Burton (1987) was not added by Dinesh. 3 out of 4 books are written by or related to Kamath. — Docku — continues after insertion below

Docku, let me clarify that I have only one book by Kamath. If I cited like this, "Sethu Madhava Rao in Kamath", it means that I am reporting what Kamath reported about the views of Sethu Madhava Rao. This is how accurate citations are provided. I can't claim a view to be Kamath's, when they are actually from someone else. Hope this clarifies.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How would one expect a person such as Kamath to write a balanced, neutral and un-biased history of Karnataka, being criticised by a respected magazine "Frontline" for introducing slanted and mis-oriented text books in his home state of Karnataka (the state in India where Kingdom of Mysore originally was) and having such simplistic and biased opinion about complex issues such as "Aryan race" and "Sarasvathi river" and having minimal academic reputation exemplified by lack of publications in respected international journals? I, coming from India, can assure you that Government job in India or being member of academic commitees dont necessarily go hand in hand with being a respected and established scientist or historian . It is unfortunate, his book among few others are one of the few extensively used in the article. — Docku — continues after insertion below

Thanks for your comments. However, I dont think this article has to do with Aryan race and Sarawathi river and the historians views about those topics. Let us please stay on the topic.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is totally off-topic in content but not in establishing reliability of sources used in this article by you. BTW, I am not concluding (can I?) anything, I am just raising questions in the reader's mind. Docku: What up? 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not like we are restriced only to these sources. Therefore, unless, the main editor cooperates with others to incorporate multiple views to bring out a balanced article, I dont see how this article can stay Featured. — Docku — continues after insertion below

I agree with you that there are other sources. If you can once again, for the sake of this FAR, very briefly state what those views are that you would like to see implemented, then we can surely proceed ahead with amicable discussions. We can put forward the views of many scholars and see how to balance their opinions. However, this article is a WP:Summary style article, closely modelled on the lines of numerous other FA's on kingdoms/Empires/Dynasties. This summary style covering various aspects of the entity including History/Governance/Economy/Architecture/Literature/Society/Religion should not be compromised, for the sake of consistancy. Then everything else becomes a matter of "wording".Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Questions to Fowler: The above post by Fowler generally raises questions related to reliability of the sources used. Even in circumstances when the sources used may not be "totally" reliable, it could still be used for attributing to well known non-controversial facts and therefore I would encourage him or anyone to raise more specific concerns in order for us to move forward. I know he has raised some specific concerns in the article talk page and I wonder if it should be repeated here as well. I would also like to know how Fowler knows for sure that Kamath's book is Indian college text book? If this can be confirmed, I would strongly recommend not using that book at all in this article or any other article as I know Indian college books dont go through any international peer-review and can be very biased. Docku: What up? 23:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• To Docku - Could you clarify which remarks above are yours and which are the interruptions by the post of another editor? I believe there is a template {{interrupted}} or — Docku — continues after insertion below - something like that to make clear who is saying what. Thanks —Mattisse (Talk) 00:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of breaking the conversation, we could rather address to a specific person, else, we will lose coherency soon again. Docku: What up? 00:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Docku, Fowler did raise his talk page concerns in his link above Talk:Kingdom_of_Mysore#My_concerns. This is a way of raising concerns without bloating the FAR with a long post. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Docku : Its not uncommon for a famous historian to be controversial. The celebrated Romila Thapar is one such example. But this does not stop her books from being referenced extensively. Often, controversy and fame tend to go hand-in-hand. We just need to balace their opinions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Dinesh - That is interesting about Romila Thapar. From that wikipedia article on her, she sounds like she is on the opposite side of the fence than Kamath, for example. How about referencing both sides equally, instead of so much reliance on Kamath, who, from googling him, seems extremely controversial? It would be interest if you would describe what the controversy is, and perhaps frame the article in that light. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The controversies regarding Thapar has nothing to do with the topic on hand, the same case as Kamath.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But it has to do with how to frame the history of India, how to present India's past. They both have forceful but opposite opinions, some of which touch on the time period of this article and earlier. I found some strong quotes by Kamath on the subject - very strong. And Thapar has published widely. Should I list some of their articles/interviews that would be relevant to this article? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Fowler&fowler Post2: I'm afraid, in contrast to Kamath's contributions, detailed above, Romila Thapar has many scholarly publications, has been cited by many more, and received wide international recognition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC) This is a distilled refactored version. Please see Original Post 2, to which user:Sarvagnya has replied below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me - but why is this discussion being taken off on a tangent here? And precisely where in this - Mis-oriented textbooks article does Kamath's name come up? I did a ctrl-F for "kamath" on all those articles and nowhere is Kamath's name mentioned! And since when did Frontline become an authority on who our sources on wikipedia should be? For that matter, The Hindu - Frontline's sister publication itself reports here that Kamath had nothing to do with the errors. Also, Kamath is affiliated with many academic institutions, has been the Director of the Raja Ram Mohan Roy library, headed the Karnataka State Gazeteer (under a Congress govt., for that matter) and is referred to as "...one of the foremost historians of Karnataka." by Kamat.com - which has behind it Dr. Jyotsna Kamat and which, as it declares on its FAQ page, is anything but sympathetic of the "so-called 'Aryan Invasion Theory'" and holds the likes of A. L. Basham and Max Mueller in high regard.

Coming back to the main point, why all this pussyfooting? Why don't the doubting Thomases simply come up with a citation from Romila Thapar or whoever it is which contradicts anything that is claimed in the article? Do it or drop it. Sarvagnya 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 3) In response to the Frontline coverage, Kamath wrote a letter to the magazine's editors titled, The Saraswati river, and signed "Chairman of the Editorial Committee," Social Studies textbooks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored version of original F&F post 3. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 4) Kamath has also publicly voiced support for the role of Hindu nationalist organizations in moral pedagogy: "The volunteers of organizations such as RSS need to rise to occasion to influence young minds into greater values of life." In contrast, scholars of Mysore, such as James Manor, who consider the Wodeyars to be Chieftains (rather than Kings) have been left out entirely. Please include them. That's actionable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Refactored version of original F&f Post 4.

The architecture section does not go into details of the architectural concepts. Just a bare minimum information on each structure. The travel books gave me just what I needed and I dont see anything wrong in using it. My idea was to later write a detailed article on architecture of Mysore kingdom (a sub-article) with books that really described the concepts in detail. I can look into the other citations web/newspaper and see if they can be improved. If I can't find anything better, then we could decide to keep that portion or remove it. Give me a day or two. As such, the information from the web page and newspaper article is not on in any way controversial. Just some basic information on structures.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post 7

Under Construction?

I just noticed that user:Sarvagnya has added an Underconstruction template to the article. The template informs us that the article is now "in the middle of a major expansion or revamping." Since this is a featured article, which, moreover, is undergoing a Featured Article Review, shouldn't posts be made both here and on Talk:Kingdom of Mysore about what precisely is being planned and in response to whom (in the FAR). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the web citations in the architecture section with book citations.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

the underlying assumption being books are reliable and not websites? Docku: What up? 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Fowler: Published books from reliable sources giving basic information on architecure should be enough. This is not a detailed treatment on architecture, just the bare minimum information.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement, except for travel guides which Misplaced Pages does not consider reliable sources of information on subjects such as architecture. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Travel guides on web pages are considered risky. Not published books.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all "published books" are considered reliable by Misplaced Pages. It depends on the publishers reputation for publishing reputably sourced and edited books, as well as the date of publication. For travel guides, the authors of specific sections are often not given. The information may be obtained from local travel bureaus or official promotional offices of tourist sites and may be no more accurate than travel web sites. Every published book must be evaluated according to WP:RS. The fact it is published is not enough. Travel guides in general are not good sources, except perhaps for milage between points or other easily corroborated information, except if they are written by known, vetted authorites on the subject. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To Dinesh If you read the histroy section of Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples, you will see "The general public mostly gets its history from novels, films, TV shows, or tour guides at various sites. These sources are full of rumor and gossip and false or exaggerated tales. They tend to present rosy-colored histories in which the well-known names are portrayed heroically. Almost always editors can find much more authoritative sources." I know you are going to tell me that that sentence discusses about "website" and you have used a "book". well. Docku: What up? 21:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(Fowler&fowler Post 10) PS I just noticed that user:Dineshkannambadi changed the name of the mother article of the literature subsection from Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE without any notice anywhere on the talk page and with the "minor edit" box checked in the edit summary. This mother article is apparently also simultaneously undergoing a peer review in preparation for an FA drive. Since this change is not uncontroversial, and very much concerns not only the name "Kingdom of Mysore" on the anvil here, but also a subsection of an article in an FAR. I would like to request user:Dineshkannambadi to make no such moves that directly concern this FAR, unless he has gained consensus for them both here and on the talk page of the mother article. I have reverted the move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The sub-article you just reverted is being renamed to include a larger subset of writers and poets from a larger area. The name of the link in this article will also change now. There is no rule that a subarticle's name can't change when a FAR is on going, so long as the sub-article still carries all the relevant information pertaining to the FA article here. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PSIt is a controversial move. I for one oppose it without discussion and concomitant explanation on the talk page. I don't care what your eleventh hour reasons are, a move has to be requested and a discussion conducted on the talk page. Changing the name of the mother article is the least of the problems in such a move. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

PPSIf a larger set of writers are to be included, why does the page name need to be changed now, when for many many months you have used artifices like naming (long) sections, "Contemporary developments and then including material that did not contemporaneously originate within the realm of the Kingdom of Mysore. This is a major issue in this FAR. Why do we need this change now, when we didn't need it earlier? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The FAR is about this article, not its sub-articles. So long as the sub-article contains plenty of relevant info, pertaining to literature in the Kingdom of Mysore, I dont see why I need to discuss this issue with you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not to address/change any of the concerns raised by others without mentioning/acknowledgeing here. Doing so will just make the person who raised that particular concern sound like a stupid when a reviewer in the future goes through that non-existing concern. Docku: What up? 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler, you need to explain why you are complaining about a sub-article here, in the FAR of this article. Sub-articles are meant to be expanded and that's what I did. Have I done similar things to distort the FAR process? Can you expalin what those distortions are? It is you who was trying to mislead a prospective reviewers by linking to a sub-article and complaining about content there in that article, discussing about unrelated and controversial topics such as Aryan invasion, Indus Valley civilization, Saraswati river, RSS and Hindu nationalism etc, after apologising to me in the very first line of the FAR. Please explain all this.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh please read Pointer 5 in this concern. Fowler has mentioned how a poet who was not born in the geographical region of mysore Kingdom was discussed in this article (Kingdom of Mysore) and elaborated in the mother article, Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore article. While I dont know anything about the veracity of that concern, by changing the title to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE, you seem to have, in fact, addressed the concern without acknowledging it here. While what you did may have been editorially a correct decision, it just comes across as non-transparent. Docku: What up? 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Docku, Fowler "should not" have linked to another article in this FAR. That is "not transperent". It is misleading to reviewers. If he had a problem with the poet Sarvajna in this article, he should have stuck to that issue with this article. If you notice, I have, several days back, copy edited the "literature" section of this article to accurately state why Sarvajna is mentioned here in this article. Are you telling me, I should not have copy edited and improved the prose here in this article? In that case, what is this FAR meant for? To improve the article or to preserve Fowlers concerns for the FARC reviewers to see. It is upto Fowler to update his concerns as I make/take remedial actions. Fowlers concerns are not meant to be "preserved" for posterity here. What sarvajna does/is in another article, is irrelevant to this FAR. I expanded the article just as I have numerous articles, changed its name to a more accurate name, and nominated that article for Peer Review. Fowler cannot complain about another article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Is there a problem to look around and discuss about issues and understand a larger problem which is not necessarily confined to this article but certainly related? your questions make my head go crazy. Docku: What up? 00:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not concerned with larger problems in this FAR. Only with this article.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hmmm. If the larger problem is understanding how the author of this article perceives what reliable sources and feature article mean, it is relevant. Your use of travel books to write History FA (and still not acknowledging it) is a question of credibility, sorry to break it to you. Docku: What up? 01:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said in the first FAR. You are supposed to be neutral and not judge the FA author or his credibility. Dont mind me breaking that to you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This FAR was already restarted once (unprecedented at FAR), yet it's back to something unmanageable again. It would be helpful if lengthy issues were hashed out on article talk, and the FAR was used to tell reviewers, briefly, what the deficiencies in WP:WIAFA are and which have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess enough has been said. If the reviewers have trouble understanding any specifics, it can be explained. Docku: What up? 23:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

The entire first paragraph in the history section (with the exception of the content I had brought in with my sources- Kamath, Aiyangar, Pranesh and Rice) seems to be unverifyable-Although legends date the Wodeyar (also "Odeyar," "Wodiyar," or "Wadiar," literally "chief") dynasty's origins to 1399, they in fact go back no earlier than the early sixteenth century, and in the estimation of some historians, even the late sixteenth or early seventeenthy centuries. These chieftains are first mentioned in a Kannada literary work in the early 16th century. A petty chieftain, Chamaraja, with dominion over a few villages on the banks of the river Kaveri, is said to have constructed a small fort and named it, Mahisura-nagara, from which Mysore gets its name. The Wodeyar clan themselves issued their first inscription in 1551 during the chieftaincy of Timmaraja Wodeyar. Two decades later, they are recorded to have owned 33 villages and fielded an army of 300 men. During this time, the Wodeyar chieftains, like other Nayaks in the region, were vassals of the Vijayanagara Empire.

• Subrahmanyam - makes no such comment on page 68 (and in the estimation of some historians, even the late sixteenth or early seventeenthy centuries)
• Stien - page 156 goes to the index but has been cited several times.
• The Manor web page - has one page info not referring to the content added. The exact page whose content is cited should be displayed in the web link.

Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post 13

After what user:SandyGeorgia has just said above, I'm not sure what the point of the post above is, or even to whom it is addressed. It is best discussed on the talk page. Let me point out though that Pp. 156 at the end of a book reference refers to the number of pages in the book, not the page number of the content cited; little wonder you are seeing the last page of the index!

PS To SandyGeorgia: I will provide a summary soon of what all has transpired here since this FAR began almost a month ago. I agree it does seem very convoluted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, comprehensiveness and NPOV. 22:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have now added a final summary in the review subsection above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The article was always FA-worthy and in the past month or so, it has improved even further. I disagree with User:Fowler&fowler's opinion of the article and also his reading of "what all has transpired here since this FAR began". His assessment is not just priggish, but also specious and flawed. The bottom line remains: "Is this article one of our best?". And the unequivocal answer to that remains - Yes. That is not to suggest that there is no scope for improvement, but that the article even in its present state is FA-worthy. I intend to further work on the article, particularly the Architecture section and improve it, but am being constrained by some exceptionally hectic times in RL. Sarvagnya 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep This page looks good to me, and certainly better than anything else on the subject elsehwere. Giano (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not yet To quote from the Religion section: The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes. The Propaganda sent out Capuchins, the Discalced Carmelites, the Theatines and the missionaries of the Society of Paris.

This is an assertion that Britain, Denmark, and the Netherlands were Catholic powers, which fails the obvious blithering nonsense test of what should not be on our Main Page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still in need of a copy edit. The origin of the kingdom, however, remain obscure, notwithstanding legends ia not grammatical English. (The list of sources which precedes it should be a separate paragraph, if not a section.)
• For that matter, the kingdom annexed large expanses of what is now southern Karnataka and parts of Tamil Nadu to become one of the powerful ruling families in the region. may evidence the confusion Fowler speaks of; but kingdoms do not become families. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Septentrionalis PMAnderson: I will take care of your concerns shortly. I am looking for a copy editor, who seem to be scarce lately.thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have started to work on your porse concerns. I will re-checkmy source regarding the religion issue.Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comments
  1. The lead is a bit confused and it is not clear to me (a lay reader) what the relationship between the Wodeyar's and the Sultan's was. The lead implies that the Wodeyar's and the Sultan's are the same family (the flow from para 1 to para 2 as well as the use of the word 'restored' in para 2) but, to the best of my knowledge, that was not the case. The first sentence is less than ideal because it refers to a Yaduraya with no help as to who he was. Perhaps the name can be deleted. In the last para, it is not clear which period is being referred to in 'this period'.--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  2. The 'Origins' section is not written in a catchy or easy to read style. Para 1 discusses obscure literature from medieval times that are of little use to the lay reader. Since there is a sub-article for this information, the entire content of this paragraph should be moved there. The second para should start with the original king Yaduraya and then move to the arrival of the Wodeyars. (The lay reader will not be aware of the importance of the Wodeyars and will be confused by the non-linearity of the implied timeline).--Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 14:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply to RegentsPark: I have started working on your concerns. Should be done later today. Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)