Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mumbai/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowMonkey 02:39, 27 May 2009 [1].

Mumbai edit

FAR commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities,User talk:Like I Care, User talk:Ninadhardikar, User talk:Utcursch, User talk:Pizzadeliveryboy, User talk:Abecedare, User talk:Hemanshu, User talk:Kensplanet, User talk:Nikkul, User talk:Nichalp.

FA from 2005, referencing/1c issues, lede does not adequately summarize article per WP:LEAD, couldn't hurt for images to be reviewed as well. Cirt (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The source of the data in the temperature/precipitation graph should be given.
The caption for File:BSE.jpg should make clear it is the exchange which is the oldest not the building. DrKiernan (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know why this article is under review. It is definitely Featured Article quality!! The whole article is written in Summary Style and the images are perfectly relevant to the sections.

It has almost half as many images as other FA city articles like Boston, San Francisco, Belgrade, Detroit, Louisville,_Kentucky, NYC, Providence,_Rhode_Island, etc. And all these images are perfectly relevant to the material being discussed in the section.

There may be some small errors, but the format of the article is definitely Featured qualityand the article definitely deserves to stay as Featured. Nikkul (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of File:BSE.jpg does say that it is the oldest stock exchange in Asia..it is very clear english..i personally do not think we need to add anymore. Ninadhardikar (talk)

If you give the year of foundation, it will be clearer that the exchange is meant rather than the building. DrKiernan (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Referencing work is going on. First, we are addressing citation needed tags. Then, we'll fix the referencing formats of already-existing citations (some of which are not in appropriate format). Meanwhile, prose is also being improved as needed. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold, pending further work on the article. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This article has 150 References and many high quality sources and books used. Most of the details in the article are included in the Official City Report which appears in the External Links section. I don't thnk everything needs to be cited seperately. This way it may exceed over 300 citations. Even the Lead has been modified. I don't think Cirt has even bothered to check the current state of the article before stating Delist Kensplanet^T _C 10:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually some of the references used do not satisfy the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. Rather, some of the references used are children's works. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is one of the best WP:FA Geography articles! It's a model for other FA's! Nikkul (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the article has greatly improved since it was (properly) nominated for FAR, and there is an ongoing effort to deal with any remaining issues. Since the primary aim of FAR/FARC is to try and improve articles, it would greatly help if reviewers listed any specific issues they may have with the sourcing, coverage, or wording here or, preferably, on the article talk page so that those too can be addressed. Abecedare (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noting that the FAR itself was a proper FAR. Here is one of those children's sources: Students' Britannica India. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most old FAs suffer from entropy and, also fail to keep up with the improving FAC standards as wikipedia matures, and Mumbai was no exception. I wouldn't call "Students' Britannica India" a "children's work", but I agree that non-tertiary sources are preferable. The rainfall and languages spoken in Mumbai are easily sourcable and I'll try to add better sources this weekend, when I'll have more time. Can you and other reviewers list similar concerns on the article talkpage so that other editors and I can make sure that they all are addressed ? Abecedare (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look you can see there are multiple other tertiary and less-than-preferable sources being used in the References section. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I glanced through the list and the only source I would definitely object to was "Christopher, Paul J. (2006). Greatest Cities in the World You Should Visit. Encouragement Press. ISBN 9781933766010." Note that I would not have myself objected to using Student's Britannica for the statements it is being used for (rainfall and languages spoken in Mumbai) even though I agree that better sources can be used; so the issue seems to be "best sources" rather than "reliable/unreliable sources". Since editorial opinion can vary on this, it would be really helpful if you and other reviewers' could be specific and cut-n-paste the sources you find inappropriate. (I assume that you are not objecting to sources like, "Ghosh, Amalananda (1990). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. Brill.", which may be mistaken for tertiary sources but which are, in fact, ideal sources for wikipedia). Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "Greatest Cities in the World You Should Visit" book, since it was a poor choice for an FA and anyways was not used in the article! Thanks Cirt, for taking the time to add {{cn}} tags; editors close to the subject often are unable to judge what facts may be non-obvious. As I said above, I'll try to work on the article this weekend, and reviewers' input would be help us focus on the aspects that need work. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare (talk · contribs), I must thank you for being so polite and gracious during this process. Hopefully other reviewers will also add input. I will reevaluate after you've worked on the article over the weekend. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any source not satisfying recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. All References are the best for the facts they source.

For example, Information about archaelogical details like Pleistocene sediments are sourced from Ghosh, Amalananda (1990). An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology. Brill., which can be considered the highest quality reliable source for the claim. Even Gazeeteers used are written by experts. Kensplanet^T _C 06:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student's Britannica can be considered reliable for details on Culture etc, though not for rainfall. Kensplanet^T _C 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, although I see that the article is being improved, and if it is improved sufficiently I may change my mind.

The writing falls short of what would be expected at FAC and what is required to meet 1a of the good article criteria:

"Mumbai (Marathi: मुंबई, Mumbaī, IPA:Mumbai_pronunciation.ogg [ˈmʊm.bəi] (help·info))—formerly Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra." Punctuation?

"The present day city was originally an archipelago of seven islands ...". No it wasn't, it was built on an archipelago of seven islands.

"Pleistocene sediments found near Kandivali in northern Mumbai by British archaeologist Todd in 1939 posit the theory ...". It's not the sediments that do the "positing".

"... the The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny called by the Indian sailors on 18 February 1946, being its most rubric events." This is at best unidiomatic and at worst meaningless. What is "rubric" meant to suggest here?

"209 people were killed and over 700 injured in the when seven bombs exploded on commuter trains in 2006." Sentences ought not to start with a number.

Much of the article seems like a collection of only loosely related facts, with no effort made to ties them together into a cohesive narrative. The last paragraph of History is a good example, in which the 1996 renaming to Mumbai is repeated after having been explained earlier in Etymology.

In 1996, the city was renamed Mumbai after the Koli Goddess Mumbadevi by the Government of Maharashtra, in keeping with their policy of renaming colonial institutions after historic local names and also was the demand of the local population." Doesn't make sense.

The study of place names is known as toponomy, not etymology. so the Etymology section ought to be renamed.

These are just a few examples from the first few sections. This article needs some serious attention from a good copyeditor to meet the FA criteria.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Please note that rather than just voting to delist this article b/c of small errors above, you can also help improve it by fixing the errors you have pointed out. Thanks. Nikkul (talk) 05:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already fixed quite a few problems, but it's not my job to fix the rest, that's your job. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.