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)
There is absolutely no space for any table. Except Bombay and Mumbai, I haven't heard of any other name. It may require input from many more editors. We two cannot decide that. KensplanetTC 18:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
"Bombaim" and "Bom Bahia" are Portuguese names of the then town/village, as noted in the discussion. --RedtigerxyzTalk 13:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
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, during the viceroyalty of João de Castro. Salsette was granted for three years to João Rodrigues Dantas, Cosme Corres, and Manuel Corres. Trombay and Chembur were granted to Dom Roque Tello de Menezes,.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The Source Origin of Bombay, p. 96 doesn't mention anything about them. I have absolutely no idea. I think they are Portuguese noblemen. But I won't indulge in WP:ORKensplanetTC 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
I thought it was reliable since it has been published by Macalester College. which is an educational institution. I am still confused. Anyway removed it.
It's not actually Published by the university, it's a personal website from a course professor for a class. There has been no fact checking, etc by the university, so whether it's published on their servers or on another outside server is irrelevant. If the author is an expert in the field (not merely a professor who teaches basic undergraduate classes that touch on this subject, but a professor involved in the study of the subject area (i.e. Indian history) then it might fulfill WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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. --RedtigerxyzTalk 13:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
So, What should I do now? I am stuck. KensplanetTC 14:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Look at the sentence it is used to cite Bombay time was set at 4 hours and 51 minutes ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) using the 75th east meridian. So don't you think the Green Wich Meantime website is the most reliable here
ARe they they official site for MeanTime though? I couldn't find anything that said they were. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references, such as DNA.
I note a large number of the "print" references are to older works, printed in the 19th or early 20th century. Surely there are more modern works that could be used?
Modern sources give very little details and context. The old sources, printed by the British Government are much more accurate, give more context and details. Modern Sources just mention a sentence for a fact. The old sources have many pages for a single fact. Old sources are much much better.
No, older sources are not necessarily better. They may be biased, they may no longer reflect the current scholarly opinion on the subject. Specically, any archeological studies would be out of date, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no opinion involved here. The facts are just presented as it is. All modern and scholarly sources themselves cite these British Government sources. So, why not use the original old source which give more details. KensplanetTC 19:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, facts can change, at least as new information is discovered, new documents uncovered, etc. I merely noted this for other reviewers, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
For the history of Mumbai article, nothing has changed. KensplanetTC 06:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Current ref 36 (Rajesh Kochhar...) is a jounal article so it should give the journal title, etc.
I also note the large number of references to Gazetteers, which is a concern, as these are generally not the best possible sources for history.
I have never heard of this rule. I think the Rules for RS go on changing daily. You have even challenged top academic institutions above, where facts are reviewed by professionals. I still cannot understand what is WP:RS. These Gazetteers have been analyzed by Experts appointed by the Government. What more you require. I think we must concentrate more on accuracy of the text and contents of the article, rather than Sources. Maybe They are not the best possible sources for history; but it does work here. KensplanetTC 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The government is not in the business of putting together scholarly histories, though. For a history article, we want the best possible sources, which would be scholarly works, published by scholarly presses, by scholars involved in the field. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
A fact is a fact. It never changes. This article is more on facts not opinions. That way even BBC may be unreliable since the journalist may not be an expert in the subject.
Otherwise, the sources used look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
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."--RedtigerxyzTalk 13:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
This one, we'll have to leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Also, there are WP:DASH issues and incorrect punctuation on image captions (see WP:MOS#Captions) throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The TIFR content site is referenced by Bombay, the Cities Within by city historian Sharada Dwivedi
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)
Oppose on criterion 3
File:Francisco de Almeida.jpg - Who is the artist ("author") and what is the date of this painting? Please include at least a death date for the author, as the license is dependent on the "life of the author + 70 years".
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
File:Bombay Thane train 1853.jpg - It is best to link to the HTML page, rather than directly to the JPG file. Right now, we can't verify any information about this image, including the license.
The Website just has the Image. No date has been specified.
File:Rajabai under Const.jpg - Do we have any more specific source information on this image that would allow users to locate this image? We need a date for this image, as the current license can't be verified, since there is no known author.
File:Nehru c.jpg - Please fill out the "summary" tag and resolve the issues outlined in the pink tags.
After a little bit of work, these issues should be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Much as I would like to support this article, I must oppose due to 1c. The relevant body of published knowledge for an article such as this would be history books on Mumbai and India, not theoretical physics websites. It is more difficult to write the article if the history of the city can only be found scattered among various print sources, but these solid sources ought to be used. I also agree with Ealdgyth that old (turn of the century) books are not the best sources. --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.