Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of Mumbai/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sarvagnya (talk | contribs) at 21:54, 28 January 2009 (→‎History of Mumbai: adding version reviewed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

History of Mumbai

Nominator(s): KensplanetTC
Toolbox

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this article incorporates lot of details about the History of the city right from ancient times to the latest terrorist attacks in Nov 2008. Thanks, KensplanetTC 11:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bombaim" and "Bom Bahia" are Portuguese names of the then town/village, as noted in the discussion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dineshkannambadi
  • Portuguese period: It would help readability if you explain in one sentence who these gentlemen were, such as missionary or pastor etc. I did not click on those name links and most readers may not–Parel, Wadala, Sion, and Worli were granted to Manuel Serrão between 1545 and 1548,[31] during the viceroyalty of João de Castro.[34] Salsette was granted for three years to João Rodrigues Dantas, Cosme Corres, and Manuel Corres.[34] Trombay and Chembur were granted to Dom Roque Tello de Menezes,[31].Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • British period: Sentence is ambiguous. How does one destroy a river, or was it the bridges over the river that were destroyed.-On 10 October 1673, the Siddi admiral Sambal entered Bombay and destroyed the Pen and Nagothana rivers, which were very important for the British and the Maratha King Shivaji.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

They study theoretical physics and pure maths, and are very famous for it, but not history etc. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just know that the source is reliable, the facts are checked by Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the content is accurate. Let me know if anyone challenges the accuracy of their research.
The page says "Now linked by The Internationalist, Harappa, The School Page (UK), WWWVL-India. Best travel site award from PlanetRider. Guide award from Encyclopedia Britannica...A very large number of readers, many anonymous, make sure that our data and links are accurate and current. Thanks to all of them." Decide for yourself. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A physics institute isn't going to reliable for history. Perhaps the history of science, but not much else. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, they are the most reputed institute in Bombay. Since this is an article on Bombay, their research on the city is reliable. If you are challenging the accuracy of such a reputed institution, then prove it. KensplanetTC 06:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If such reputed institutions are considered unreliable, then tell me do people have any other option except to use snippets. These Snippets may then satisfy your policies, but then how much accurate it may be, God knows, since we do not get to know the entire context. Tell me, do you want me to use Snippets? KensplanetTC 08:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't a history institute, so self-published material is not OK for them, whereas self-published physics info, as long as it isn't OR, is OK. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, yes, I would prefer that folks not use Google Snippets, but that one isn't one that can be enforced. My personal view is that only seeing part of the work means you miss context, but so far, current thinking on Wikipedia is that it's okay. I usually point out when an article relies a lot on Snippets, so that other reviewers are aware, but I won't oppose on that basis. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, What should I do now? I am stuck. KensplanetTC 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, the sources used look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment supporting use of Gazetteers for history issues

Having written several articles on history (though not w.r.t a city) including on some of the empires and kingdoms that controlled the Mumbai region (though from elsewhere) during medieval times, I can surely understand why the author has used Gazetteers to generate his information. If one were to read real history books on each of these empires, it would become apparent that information specifically pretaining to Mumbai would be really hard to come by simply because Mumbai was not the regal capital of any of those great empires. In fact Mumbai's rise to fame is more recent. Mumbai's current day stature in India would hardly matter to a book on Rashtrakuta Dynasty for instance. Therefore Gazetteers would be the obvious choice, were government appointed epigraphists and historians would built its history based on evidence on hand. In fact a Gazetteer could easily replace a dozen history books when we are talking about "History of a any specific modern city". So long as the information is reasonably accurate, I dont see a problem. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer by definition is "A geographic dictionary or index". This article is after all the history of a geographic location, namely Mumbai, thus the Gazetteer has to be considered a reliable reference, in this case. Also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches says "Government sites (here Maharashtra State Gazetteer) connected to the field (here history of area. under it's jurisdiction) may be reliable."--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one, we'll have to leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments
  1. The TIFR content site is referenced by Bombay, the Cities Within by city historian Sharada Dwivedi
  2. The Gazeeters should be the Imperial Gazetteer of India, a reliable source. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarvagnya

Can't support yet - I have not taken a close look yet. On first impressions, the article is on the right track overall, but I see more than a few issues with it right now, especially with the way it is strung together. Here are some observations in no particular order.

  • some paragraphs are excessively long and are not easy on the eyes. The ones in the Islamic period section seem just about the right size.
  • The lede should start with something more introductory than "Mumbai (formerly Bombay) originally consisted of seven islands on the western coast of India.". And "originally"? So it has changed since then? I'm not sure if this is discussed in detail elsewhere in the article, but ideally, this information should be as close as possible to the "originally" sentence.
  • The second sentence reads more like how the first sentence ought to look like.
  • King Bhimdev of which dynasty/empire?
  • "Although human habitation existed during the Stone Age, the Kolis, a fishing community, were the earliest known settlers of the islands." -- Link Stone age to South_Asian_Stone_Age. The Indian Stone age spanned tens of thousands of years. When in this period do we have evidence of the earliest human settlement? Neolithic? And when did the Kolis live?
  • First part of "Ancient History" section should be hived off into a "Pre-history" section. The second part into "Age of indigenous empires" or some such because the sections that follow are constructed as "Islamic", "Portuguese", "British" etc.,.
  • General comment: History of any region/city is always intimately tied to larger historical patterns. For example, the Islamic period section starts abruptly by mentioning that the islands were under the Muzaffarid dynasty. Who were these Muzaffarids? Where did they come from? When? Islamic rule in India started much earlier than the 14th century and the reader should be given some of this perspective. Sections should start with a bit of 'macro-history' before diving headlong into 'micro-history'.
  • Almeida's image belongs in Portuguese period section. Also too many images on the left side. Unless it hurts the formatting, keep images on the right. afa possible.
  • In fact, the entire third paragraph in the Islamic period section seems better off in the Portuguese period section.
  • Some of the images can do with some more work on the captions. Peshwa Baji Rao, for example. Right now, the caption only seems to tell us-"hey look.. this is what he looked like". Instead, captions should tell us succinctly exactly why he is even afforded an image in the article. A good caption can add a lot of value to the article and understanding--especially for people unfamiliar with the subject.

More later. Sarvagnya 21:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_Mumbai/archive1&oldid=267058448"