Talk:Mumbai/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

  • I will be undertaking this review. The article is long, so please have some patience if it takes me a few days to cover all points.
  • Thank you to the many regular editors of this article who have made tremendous improvements in recent weeks after the delisting following FAR, which probably was a disappointment to some.
  • I may undertake some copyedits as I go: I encourage regular editors of the page to check any of my copyedits to ensure I haven't unintentionally altered the sense of anything.

The article is generally very well-written and, while intensively edited by a number of editors, is stable. It appears neutral, illustrated by a good range of images, and is structured under a sensible and manageable series of headings. While there have obviously been issues, particularly in relation to the citation of sources, that were of concern at Feature Article level, this remains an outstanding Wikipedia entry.

Detailed points[edit]

====Toponymy====

  • The last sentence of this section: "J.P. Machado seems to reject..." would be more appropriate as the last sentence of the previous para, as it is the previous para that is about the 'bom bahia' theory.

History[edit]

  • "In place of the present day city was an archipelago..." I think would be better phrased as "Where Mumbai currently stands was an archipelago..." or (better) "Mumbai is built on what was once an archipelago..."
    •  Done. Your prose skills are better KensplanetTC 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • "In 1534, the Portuguese appropriated the seven islands of Bombay from Bahadur Shah of the Gujarat Sultanate by the Treaty of Bassein. However, the seven islands were later surrendered, on 25 October 1535." Two points. First, I would query the language: I would not have thought that something was "appropriated" if the transfer of the islands was by treaty. "Appropriated" to me suggests it was involuntary, even perhaps taken by force. Second, surrendered by whom and to whom? If this means by the Portugese, back to the Shah, it is best to make it clearer: perhaps "returned to the Sultanate" would be better.
    •  Done. Made it very clear. The islands were offered to the Portuguese, not the other way round. Was it really so confusing? KensplanetTC 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

More later. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry Kensplanet and others, some things got out of hand and I'm probably going to have to be offline for about three or four days. I've also been asked to help out at an FAC in difficulty, but I will get back to this review ASAP. Hope you can be patient. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Take your own time. FACs are more urgent that GANs. This GAN can surely wait. See you after a few weeks. KensplanetTC 08:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The history section needs a little more than "The islands suffered incursions from the Mughals in the late 17th century" to cover the period 1687 to 1782. A couple of sentences with their references, summarising existing material from History of Mumbai, focussed on the British defence of Bombay against incursion and the transfer back and forth of governance would be good. Trying to form a clearer picture of exactly what happened during this period would help - the main History article itself I found hard to follow, in terms of clearly understanding who ruled what when during this period. If I understnad correctly, the period involved a kind of three-cornered contest between British, Portugese and local interests such as Maratha Baji Rao I. It would be good to get more clarity here.
    •  Done. Added details on the Portuguese-Maratha-British wars. KensplanetTC 06:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*The only history for the last 20 years concerns terrorist activities. That is not balanced. This same period has seen, as I understand it, the ongoing rise of Mumbai as an economic power within India. In my view, the modern history in History of Mumbai is also a little unbalanced in this regard, placing too much emphasis on high-profile events (like bombings) and not enough on historically signfiicant developments that are not necessarily tied to events in the news.

    •  Done, I think - added information from the History of Mumbai article, including the formation of the Shiv Sena in the 1960s and the expansion of the city in the 1970s and 1980s. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The phrase "The city's secular fabric was torn apart..." is not encyclopedic and needs to be 'toned down'.
    •  Done Reworded to a more neutral tone. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • After SBC's edits, I think the History section post 1960 onwards looks quite balanced. It also speaks about development. KensplanetTC 11:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much to SBC-YPR and Kensplanet. I have also added a concluding para to try (fairly crudely) to give some overall 'shape' to the section, and to not have it conclude only with a list of facts about bombings etc. Please check my work, and I otherwise think this is now done. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

====Geography====

  • I would have expected perhaps some mention of latitude / longitude in this section? Or coords? And what ocean / sea it sits on.

 Done. KensplanetTC 11:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate[edit]

OK

Economy[edit]

OK

Civic administration[edit]

This section states "Almost all the state political parties field candidates in the elections for Councillors."... but it doesn't tell us anything about the results. Do any particular political parties tend to have a strong showing or monopolise government of Mumbai, as is the case in Kolkata for example? Which party governs at present? When were the last elections and how often are they held? This material could, alternatively, be in a separate section called "politics" (as in Delhi, or might be part of "history" (as in Kolkata, if editors are uncomfortable with including it under "civic administration".

It will take some time to add this info. Though I found some link on exact results of state elections in the state, it will take some time to find reference on which parties formed the government after these elections. Also, haven't got any ref for similar results on Municipal elections in the city.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, one Party claims they have a strong monopoly over Bombay and the Government. That is the Shiv Sena. Actually that's just a claim. Sometimes they win, sometimes the [{Congress]]. The Shiv Sena were miserably defeated this time in the polls. We have added their wonderful activities in the History section. But however looking at the poll results, no party has any monopoly over Mumbai. KensplanetTC 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
In state elections, Congress was always single largest party except three elections, current one when NCP was single largest party (they formed the government forming a coalition with Congress), last one when BJP-Shiv Sena alliance was in power (from 1995), and in 1978 when Sharad Pawar led a coalition of many parties. I got a book reference which clearly says it (except current government info), but unfortunately it has a typo; it says Congress was always in power in the state since the inception of the state till '1992' (should have been 1995) except in 1978, when Sharad Pawar, ... etc. I am not sure about whether a single party had a monopoly over winning Legislative Assembly seats or Parliamentary seats of the city of Mumbai.--GDibyendu (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the way I expresssed my point has caused distraction. Forget the monopoly issue. My central point is: whatever the politics of the city, can some information be added about this? The facts sketched in the above comments by both Kensplanet and GDibyendu are exactly the sort of things we need - a para or two on who won what, roughly speaking, together with any analysis from reliable sources. Not a lot, just to give people the feel for the contests that take place in Mumbai politics. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The parties who govern the city have also been added as of 2009. KensplanetTC 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
OK. But that may require a new section "Politics". We can't have that in Civic administartion. KensplanetTC 12:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We have tremendously expanded the "Politics" section. Please do have a glance. KensplanetTC 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fabulous. This is exactly the sort of thing that was needed. It will need more clarification at FA level, but we're OK for GA (I made one minor change). hamiltonstone (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

====Transport====

  • Acronyms need to be either spelt out or explained: BEST, MSRTC and BRTS. BEST appears to be spelt out in the following section, but should be in full when it first appears.
  • Is anything known about the numbers of cars, taxis and rickshaws in Mumbai?
    •  Done. Added no of taxis - 50,000. No idea about no of cars. KensplanetTC 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

====Utility services====

  • can appropriate wikilinks be provided for CDMA and GSM?

Demographics[edit]

  • The very low ratio of females to males needs an explanation - what does the literature say?
OK - can you add something in the article? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC).
Yes, I did add it. You can check the Demographics, first Para, last sentence. KensplanetTC 06:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "Mumbai has a large polyglot population like any other metropolitan city of India." Really? It exhibits far higher religious diversity than Kolkata, and more than Delhi or Chennai. I have the impression (though I can't substantiate it) that Mumbai is also perhaps more culturally diverse than some cities, and more oriented toward, and inter-connected with, the international community because of its trade links. Can someone look at whether this warrants being described as "like any other metropolitan city of India"?
    • Actually, there are two more metropolitan cities - Hyderabad, India and Bangalore. Their demographics are similar to that of Mumbai. Yes, it is culturally diverse. But I dunno whether it is more culturally diverse than any other city or no. KensplanetTC 05:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

People and culture[edit]

*This section begins very strangely. The first para has sentence (1) about what the residents call themselves, (2) about how close to transport they are, then (3) local culinary delicacies. This needs significant reorganising, and I am not sure whether all these sentences belong in the Culture section. If they do, they don't belong in the first para. I suggest the first paragraph of this section needs to be a 'big picture' introduction to Mumbai culture. Something like (remembering, of course, that whatever is written needs to be supported by the published sources): "Mumbai's history as a major trading centre has led to a diverse range of cultures, religions and cuisines coexisting in the city. This has led, for example, to the celebration of both Indian and western festivals and to the city being the base of India's thriving film industry" (etc). Then subsequent paras need to give some detail, but without sounding like a travel guide.

  • Related to my comments under the heading "demographics" - why does this section's title include the word "people"?
    • Added some details on Architecture. KensplanetTC 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Done. Renamed "People and culture" to "Culture". KensplanetTC 08:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Are there any notable individuals that should be mentioned (as is the case in the Kolkata entry)? Rushdie? And should not this section mention Mumbai resident Aravind Adiga and his Man Booker-winning White Tiger, which draws inspiration from the rise and rise of the economy and metropolis of places like Mumbai?

Media[edit]

*"ESPN, Star Sports, Zee Marathi, ETV Marathi, DD Sahyadri, Mee Marathi, Zee Talkies, Zee TV, STAR Plus and news channels like Star Majha are popular." Is there a source that says they are popular?

    • Almost impossible to find citations for such non-contentious claims. But however that's true. If someone does write an article tomorrow on the popular channels in Mumbai, I'll surely put it there. KensplanetTC 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry to be picky here, but the way it is drafted it implies that the channels that are listed are the popular ones, while there may be other unlisted channels that are not. This is not a "non-contentious" claim. If what is meant is that the list contains all available channels, that would be non-contentious, replacing the words "are popular" with "are available" (or similar). however if you are saying that these particular ones have more viewers than others, that should be substantiated. I know in some countries ratings are regularly published that reveal how many viewers watch which channels, however they may not cover payTV, and such ratings may not be provided in Mumbai. If nothing is available, I suggest revising this section to indicate what are the service providers (i am assuming a full listing of all channels would be long and pointless) :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, I do agree with your concerns. I found no such news article on the NET which deals with the popular channels in Mumbai. Some 10-15 year old books do have some info, but they are outdated and incomplete. Many new channels have been introduced in the 21st century. These books do not reflect the current popularity and statistics. So, I really don't know how to deal with this. Statistics of India may not be the same for Mumbai. Do you suggest something. For popular newspapers in Mumbai, there was an article published by Rediff. KensplanetTC 06:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
          • OK. I have dealt with the "popular" issue. I am about to pass this for GA. I urge you to include some of the analysis from that article you found about Mumbai papers, but that can be for FA - it does not need to hold up the GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Other[edit]

*Are there any public holidays specific to Mumbai (if so, include probably in culture section)?

    •  Done. Yes, there is one, Maharashtra Day on May 1, Although it is not unique to the city, and is celebrated throughout the state but not the nation. But this one is extremely important for Mumbai, since this was the day, when Bombay City was properly created and included in the state. KensplanetTC 05:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall comment[edit]

  • This article is very informative, and should reach GA with little difficulty. Can I commend all editors on the commitment to digging out information and ensuring very close referencing of the article. I think it is a fine effort.
  • For those interested in taking it to FA: it reads a little too much like a long list of facts and snippets of information. Revision to reach Feature Article status in my view would concentrate on giving an overall 'shape' to the facts, that would give the reader a more coherent 'feel' for the city. This issue is most evident in the History, Civic administration, and People and culture sections. Only in the culture section have I suggested that there is enough of an issue for this to need some editing to pass at GA level. But I would one day like to see this article provide more of a narrative, perhaps bolstered by drawing on the overall picture created by some academic studies of Mumbai / the region in Indian history, both ancient and modern, that have already been cited in the reference list (there may be others of course). But this is already good work. Thank you for giving me such a good piece to review. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Progress[edit]

  • I have struck out things already dealt with, and some points, outlined in the original review above, still need work. The three main issues are: (1) recent history needs to be balanced, not just about terrorist attacks etc; (2) civic administration needs some more information on the politics; and (3) the culture section needs work. Happy to keep on hold and keep watching. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DONE