Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Mumbai/archive2

History of Mumbai

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-
  house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page
  for January 2009.

Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 09:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing Mexico City Metropolitan Cathedral, if you have any more comments for that review, they are welcome too. Here are my thoughts on History of Mumbai:
  • There are many more comments. Make sure you answer them in the review. Kensplanet^T_C 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Em dashes (—)
  should not have spaces around them.
• Proofreading the whole article again would be good, to avoid things like "Geologists believe that the coast of western India came into being". ("the" is missing). "on July 1669" (should be "in July 1669").
• Consider making all thumbnails smaller, and making them the same size. Allow all horizontal thumbnails to be the default size (don't specify a width), and for all vertical thumbnails, add the "upright" parameter to the image tag, and they will be narrower than the horizontal ones. After doing that, I might see if the caption text can be shortened so as to not overwhelm the thumbnails.
• The "21st Centurty" heading is offset by the presence of a left-aligned thumbnail directly above it. I would avoid that if possible.
  • The "21st Centurty" heading has been removed. Kensplanet^T_C 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the title of the article "History of Mumbai" is descriptive and not a proper noun, I would change the first sentence of the article to remove boldface History of Mumbai in it. See
  MOS:BEGIN I'd start by defining Mumbai, just like the beginning of the Mumbai article. Some thing like: (For comparison, look up a bunch of other "History of ___" articles, such as History of the United States, History of New York, History of London, History of Berlin, History of education, History of tennis
  )

(Current version)
The History of Mumbai recounts the growth of

most populous cities in the world

. Although human habitation existed during...

(My version)

seven islands on the western coast

of India. Although human habitation existed during...

• Excellent suggestion. I have implemented it. Kensplanet^T_C 06:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reworded the lead sentence further to follow
  WP:BOLDTITLE and implemented it in the article. Hope you like it.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is a mixture of date formats (19 June 1966 and February 17, 1803). Choose one or the other and stay consistent within the article.
  • We are following the dd mm yy format and not mm dd, yy. We'll fix it soon. Kensplanet^T_C 06:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The last two sections of the article are "Post-independence and modern period (1948 - 2000)" and "21st century". I do not see the need to separate these into two sections, and I find the division at the year 2000 to be artificial. I would join these into one section called either "Modern period" or "Post-independence period".
  • Merged into a single section Modern period (1948+). Any suggestions on the Title. Kensplanet^T_C 06:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You might alphabetize the see also section.
  • Done. Kensplanet^T_C 06:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 LinguistAtLarge  22:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a quick point - seems to be
  overlinked at bit. I realise that in a history overview there will be quite a lot of wikilinks, but many of the place names (for instance) are repeatedly linked throughout the article (sometimes twice in the same paragraph). Cutting back links will improve readability and appearance. sassf (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for checking. We'll fix it. You are right that there are a lot of wikilinks. Want me to review anything. Tell me. Kensplanet^T_C

I'm unwilling to get my hands dirty as the markup is intimidating with all the cite. I'll review section by section, first scanning for fallacies. I'll leave the lead for the last. This is my initial review.

1. Bombay Castle and the fort walls are not the same. Bombay Castle was never expanded.

   Sorry, didn't get it.

2. Mecca is not a port

   Changed Port to cities.

3. Bombay Courier needs to be in italics

   Done

4. Link Bhor Ghat, Mendham's Point, Town Hall (Asiatic Society)

   As far as red links are concerned, I have finished creating relevant articles till Portuguese Period section. British period and the rest will be done soon. Linked Town Hall with

   Asiatic Society of Bombay

5. The Cotton Exchange was established in Cotton Green, --> the Cotton Green was at Colaba at that time. No need to link to the present location

   Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Citations are creating a problem while editing, you can try User:Kensplanet/History of Mumbai which has only text. You can copy it in your sandbox. Make all the changes. Tell me when it's done. We'll make the changes in the main article then. Kensplanet^T_C 16:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the "Portuguese period" section is now being pushed to the right due to a left-aligned image right above it. If this could be avoided, that would be a good thing. Perhaps the preceeding section can be expanded a bit, or the picture moved up or made smaller.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  20:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'll surely tackle that later. Now we must more concentrate on Prose and context Kensplanet^T_C 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dineshkannambadi

• Lead 1st para (see how this reads) and make any necessary changes:

Excellent suggestions. The Modified Prose.

• :Ancient period: This is inaccurate.The Kalachuris of Central India ruled the islands during the fifth century, which were then acquired by the Mauryas in the sixth and early part of the seventh century.[7] The Mauryas were feudatories of Kalachuris,[7]. The entire Maharashtra came under
  Hiuen Tsiang
  —Chopra 2003, p. 74 part 1; Ramesh (1984), pp. 79–80, pp. 86–87; Kamath 2001, p. 59; Sastri (1955), p. 135–136. The Kalachuris became vassals of the Chalukyas of Badami thereafter.

[File:Aihole inscription of Ravi Kirti.jpg] Oh!, I think you mean Konkan Mauryas. That may be accurate because the Konkan Maurays became vassals of Chalukyas from about early 7th c. CE.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are the Konkan Mauryas. The Greater Bombay District Gazetteer supports it. You can also ckeck Maharashtra State Gazetteers‎. It says As stated before, north Konkan was ruled by the Mauryas, who were probably feudatories of the Kalachuris. Kensplanet^T_C 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a one line info on the Koli community just sitting there with no further information on it. If you want it in that section, you should find more information on them from that period.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please give atleast one line info on King Bhimdev. After describing many dynasties, suddently discussing a king without any dynastic affiliation throw the reader off.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undue statement, unless you can elaborate what they did upon arrival-A group of Konkani Muslims called Naitias or Navayats from Bhatkal in Karnataka first appeared in these islands during their rule.[22]Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Migration details are not undue for a city like Bombay. Migration has shaped the city's diverse demographics, and is an integral part of history. But I understand what you are trying to say. I'll check my sources to see what I can find. I am sure they may have come and constructed many mosques. :) Kensplanet^T_C 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]