Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumbai/archive2 - Wikipedia


Article Images
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 29 August 2009 [1].

Nominator(s): Hometech (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page
Toolbox

I was trying to save it but it got demoted a few months ago. Trying once again... Hometech (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present but has several problems:

  • "A white tomb seen at night" The image is not that of a white tomb at night.
  • "A fountain as seen at night" is not informative enough. What does the fountain look like?
  • "A map of the Indian city of Mumbai marked by yellow and green colours" gives little info about what the map conveys to the sighted reader. Please describe the layout of Mumbai (e.g., the peninsula) in the alt text, rather than mentioning irrelevant details like colors.
  • "A graph showing temperatures temperature and rainfall of the Indian city of Mumbai using red and blue lines" has a similar problem. What does the graph tell the reader about temperature and rainfall, at first glance? Details of color are unimportant and should be removed: what's important is what the rainfall and temperatures are.
  • "Likewise for "Map of Maharashtra showing location of Mumbai" and "Map of India showing location of Maharashtra"
  • "A skyscraper photographed from the bottom" focuses too much on technical details in producing the image ("photographed from the bottom"; please remove this) and too little about what the skyscraper looks like. There's no need to describe the skyscraper in gory detail, but some detail (e.g., number of stories) should be given.
  • Similarly, remove "Black and white photo of".
  • "Residential skyscrapers" is too vague. Again, it doesn't have to be long, but 2 words is too short.
  • "a court building amid trees". First, the word "court" is not immediately obvious from the image and should be removed. Second, there's not enough detail about what the building looks like.
  • File:1st INC1885.jpg lacks alt text, as do twelve other images Twelve images lack alt text (click the "alt text" button of the toolbox at the upper right of this review page to see them).
  • "A building with clock towers at night" is vague and incorrect; that photo was taken during the day.
  • Other alt text entries that are too vague or incorrect: "A red bus with black signboard", "A bustling hall inside an airport" (that hall is almost empty; it's not "bustling"), "A brown building"
  • Alt text containing phrases that are not obvious from the image and should be reworded or removed: "town hall", "idol", "Skyline at Cuffe Parade, the Rajabai Clock Tower, the Taj Mahal Hotel, Nariman Point & Gateway of India", "Seal of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai".
  • A few of the smaller images appear purely decorative and should be marked with "|link=" as described in WP:ALT. The attempt to do that with the seal did not work; please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page.

Eubulides (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why is there nothing in article about cityscape and landmarks? You only extremely briefly mention one or two chuches and a stadium or two in other sections. One of the first things I would want to know is an overview of the most notable churches/temples/colonial buildings roads and streets etc. Why is the cityscape section missing? The article tells me ptactically nothing about architecture and cityscape in the city. You should definately add a new section on cityscape and highlight many of the notable landamrks and roads and analyse the architecture. Obviously it should be a nice summary and then spread out into sister articles like Architecture of Mumbai, List of roads in Mumbai etc but it is essential in my view you give information about cityscape. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC) *Shoo! Mumbai doesnt even have that much eyepopping architecture (U must be a Roman or Londoner). We've mentiond whatever is notable. Roads arent anything great! Fierce policing is needed in these FACs to get rid of demands made against scope the topic. Hometech (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) :Fine then, don't expect it to be repromoted then. Ignoring 3 million google hits is pretty ignorant. Major roads and streets whether you think they "are not that" or not should still be mentioned. I've just created an article on Architecture of Mumbai which makes this main article look far from comprehensive. All I ask for is a summarized paragraph. Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Hometech (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now, flows very well and might I say you did a very good job of writing a nice summary. My major concerns have been met now. Nicely done. I was going to suggest that you sub head the culture section to make the information easier to find it took me a while to find it! No objections though, oh just one, remove falling rain, not a reliable source for anything other than coordinates, trust me I know from experience, please remove that as a source but for coordinates use a US government source, falling rain is compiled using the geonames database I believe, use that instead. World gazetteer is an excellent site but its is compiled by an amateur. I would use a government source. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kensplanet has responded to these issues on gazeter below. Hometech (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Hometech (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information added in the above refs. Hometech (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that this Web site is the best source on the Internet for getting location information of any place in the world. It can be grouped as a "very good" Web site. under World Gazetteer section. KensplanetTC 07:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these sources out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I hate to do this since the article has seen considerable work since its FAR, but it still needs significant improvement in prose, organization and flow of ideas and content in paragraphs and sections, relative weight, selection of images etc before it can be promoted to FA. This is a placeholder comment; I'll expand on it with examples over the next couple of days. Abecedare (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Ridiculous FAC rules and process Anyone can oppose near the end (for no clear reason) and get away with it? One day has passed by without your valid reasons. I hope you respond or else this Oppose will be gone straightaway. Hometech (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Supporting and opposing" in WP:FAC says "If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. ... Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." I'm not sure about YellowMonkey's oppose (talk with Monkey about the sources etc.) but if Abecedare doesn't come back like in a few hours, that'll just be ignored by the FAC people. Do allow those few hours, though: many FACs have taken days or weeks longer. Shouting at editors and rules with big bold letters like this just makes you look silly along the way—if the article looks good and has some support and just a stray unexplained oppose, you'll get your star. --an odd name 16:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up on my oppose above. Here are examples of issues with the article that need to be addressed:
    • Due weight and comprehensiveness concerns:
      • The section Toponym is unduly long - comparable to Geography and Economy sections - and needs to be summarized/split off.
      • More than half of the city population lives in slums, and here is the complete coverage on the topic,
        "About 60% of Mumbai's population lives in slums. Dharavi, Asia's second largest slum[193] is located in central Mumbai and houses 800,000 people. Slums are also a growing tourist attraction in Mumbai."
      The last sentence is completely undue, and bordering on silly, emphasis on a novelty news item. Instead, the article needs at least a couple of paragraphs worth of content on the economy, demographics, sanitation and water issues, demolition and rehousing programs etc as they relate to slums.
      I have removed the last sentence. But, however I still do not agree with you. Mentioning those details will unnecessarily make the section lengthy. It would be very kind of you if you give us an example of a city FA where such details are included. KensplanetTC 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This is simply a matter of due weight How can an article on a city be balanced if it doesn't adequately describe how 60% of its population lives ? Note that I am not arguing that a proportional fraction of the article should be devoted to the slums, since honestly, the richer population in a city has a far greater influence in defining its history, economy, infrastructure and culture, but some basic information must be provided. As for what exact topics should be covered, that is best determined by looking at how books on the topic of Mumbai and/or housing/slums in Mumbai address the issues. The list of topics I mentioned above are mere suggestions. As for article length - yes it is an issue, but there are several peripheral and much less important details in the article that can be easily excised to keep it readable - I'll list some in the second round review if needed. Abecedare (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The description of the suburban rail transport network is quite good and correctly calls it the "backbone of the city's transport". However one can read the whole article without learning anything about the over-congestion and deaths on the rail network, which are certainly two of its notable features. Ditto for road transport.
      • Mumbai is a prominent hub for smuggling, organized crime [2], [3], prostitution and spread of AIDS (see 2007 discussion) in India. These issues at least deserve a sentence or two each in the article.
      • No discussion of air and water pollution and related respiratory problems ?! We don't need to make the article into a denunciation of the city, but an encyclopedic article on Mumbai needs to discuss these issues.
    • Grammar and prose issue: The article needs a thorough copyedit. I'll list below only a few obvious examples.
      • " ...there are six major lakes that supply water to the city, such as Vihar, Lower Vaitarna, Upper Vaitarna, Tulsi, Tansa and Powai." Such as is incorrect when all six lakes are listed.
      • "The rich literary traditions of the city have been set internationally by Booker Prize winners Salman Rushdie, Aravind Adiga, ..."
      • "Contemporary art is well-represented in both government-funded art spaces and private commercial galleries." What does "well-represented" mean in this context ?
        • Done
      • "With its unique topography, Mumbai has one of the best natural harbours in the world, ..." What does "unique" mean in this context ? Isn't every city's topography "unique" ? What does "best natural harbour" mean ? How is that objectively measured ? (If it is an opinion, it needs to be attributed)
      • "Electricity is distributed by Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) in the island city, a consumption of 3,216 GWh," ...
        • Done
      • The tense use in some places is inconsistent.
    • Flow issues I think this is the most significant issue with this article (In FA terms, the prose is far from "brilliant"). Some sections, such as History and Climate are in reasonably good shape, while others, such as Politics and Utility services, read as an unconnected collection of factoids. For example, the Politics section starts with the 1885 Indian National Congress session. The next sentence jumps to the Shiv Sena formation in 1960s and the next two deal with 1968, 1973, and 1985 BMC elections and 1989 Assembly (the term hasn't even been defined in the article). The remaining section is in the same vein, and the reader has no idea why these particular details are being mentioned while other are being excluded. Similarly, the Utilities section contains a lot of raw statistical and logistical information, culled from 16 different sources, but little context about the availability and quality of the infrastructure and services. I cannot imagine a review article on the utilities in Mumbai, that doesn't discuss those issues.
    • References There is not a significant WP:RS or WP:V concern with the article. However many sections seem to have been sourced piecemeal and hence fail to provide adequate context (see my comments about the flow above). The post hoc referencing also results in use of sub-par non-authoritative references in some cases. For example, "Mumbai has one of the best natural harbours in the world" is referenced to a throwaway sentence in the book Environment, health and sustainable development, where it appears in a section discussing slums! Using a few authoritative sources to write each section results in superior content and reading experience.
    • Images I have several concerns about the image selection in the article (note: I have discussed some of these issues on the article talk page previously):
      • Finally, some of the image captions need to be improved. For example, "Bollywood is based in Mumbai", "Ganesh Chaturthi, a popular festival in Mumbai", "The Elephanta Caves are UNESCO World Heritage Site." etc fail to tell the reader what is shown in the images themselves.
        • Done
Abecedare (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a significant editor: After analyzing Abecedare's comments, I think the article still needs to improve in some areas. It is impossible to resolve these issues now. We are almost at the end of FAC. The article anyway won't be promoted, with 1 Support from Dr. Blofeld, 1 Oppose (pending) from YellowMonkey, and 1 Strong Oppose from Abecedare. So, all I would like to say is "better luck next time." KensplanetTC 09:34, 28 August 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.