Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumbai/archive1

Mumbai
This is one of the largest projects I've undertaken. I've added a lot of information (including satellite pages so that there are no red links) to the city which is India's largest. I've also made all the maps, added a wikiquote and had it translated into numerous other languages (I'm working on adding about 15 more). Helped by User:Kaal, User:Sundar and User:Brhaspati in the copyediting of the text. It was on Peer Review last week and received just a single suggestion which was promptly addressed. I hope that this article sets the standards for all city articles. Nichalp 18:47, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Good article, but there are too many images and they are poorly sized (they are much too small) and all over the place. A lot of the map articles should be moved to the Geography of Mumbai article. Páll 19:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've right aligned all images, and set all photographs to a standard 250px. The maps cannot be enlarged further due to their aspect ratio which would magnify their size. Please see if the juggling makes the page better. Nichalp 20:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * While the right-aligning is helpful, I still find that most of the images on this article give absolutely no indication as to the character of Mumbai. There are far too many maps, most of which are barely germaine to the subject they discus. I attemtped a slight change myself, but there is now a huge gap in the Civic Administration section due to the fairly pointless map of all the districts of Mumbai. Take a look at Johannesburg for what I consider to be a well-constructed city article. Páll 20:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * i have removed the ward map from the article for now. But T don't understand what u mean by images not giving the character of the city or maps being barely germane to the subject. All the maps in the article are relevant to the topic being discussed and i dont see the need to take them out. And having been to mumbai the rest of the images are what you will see in the city. They exactly show the way the city is. kaal 20:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I too don't understand why you have problems with the maps. The ward map is given alongside the text: The city is divided into 23 wards. This map is important; it is akin to the administrative regions map of Johannesburg. The district map shows the distinction between the city and metropolis. The rail network is shown alongside the transport section. I think its position alongside is germaine; it gives a reader an idea on what the topics are about. Sarajevo, on the contrary has loads of images, but all of them have a smaller size and tastefully done so that they don't mar the page. If you have problems with the captioning of the pictures, please let us know; that can be easily resolved, but getting new images to accede to your objection would be difficult at this juncture. Nichalp 18:39, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I dislike the maps because this article discusses one of the largest cities in the world, and you have four map images. They do not contribute to the article, only one is enough. There is a large gap at the bottom of the Transport section. The maps are not bad, but they need to be taken off the main page and moved to the sub articles and images that give more of a character of the city itself need to be put in their place. The history section needs to be much longer, and there needs to be more discussion over the name change from Bombay to Mumbai. Obviously, there must have been different parties with their own opinions on both sides, I want to know more. It is a major name change. The map of the location of Mumbai needs to be changed and the location needs to be made much more clear. The user shouldn't have to scan the map to try to read where Mumbai is. There are spelling mistakes galore. The lead section is clumsy, particularly the "and is located on an island..." section. You talk about the new companies located there, but the (tiny tiny) economy section only has an image of auto rickshaws? Is that the most important feature to showcase Mumbai's economy? Also, are there any more recent references? Surely your information about recent changes must have come from somewhere, as the latest printed reference is from 1995. This is why I am objecting. Páll 19:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've referenced the statistics on the economy from Manorama Yearbook 2003 (I've already mentioned it). (The 2005 version should be out soon). In the demographics part; I've referenced the figures from the Times of India newspaper (various issues): Since I do not have the exact date, (I can give you the approx week) I haven't listed it.
 * The history section is a summary of the main points. I would not like to expand it as it would be too long given that there is a main article. Similarly with the economy section. Two paragraphs are perfectly fine since there is a main article. Its within wikipedia policy, and expanding the length would lead to objections from others. The main history article will be having detailed information soon (I've got stuck around 1700: I lost my data over a crash; but will be readding it in a day or two.)
 * The location is marked with a red dot and highlighted with a yellow background. Surely its easy to pick it out? (I can't expand the image as the table would expand.)
 * About the maps: While your points are sound, there's no policy on the "appropriateness" of its inclusion or non-inclusion on this page. If there is a consensus by more reviewers on whether the maps are an impediment or not germane, I'll be happy to concede and remove them. I'll remove the auto-rickshaw image as it conflicts with the economy section.
 * The space after the tranport section is due to the syntax "

. Its common to use this syntax in many pages if the image overlaps with the next heading. If not used, the result would be horrendous in some resolutions. Nichalp 19:41, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag.
 * I've removed the autorickshaw image, added images in their relavent section and removed the road map. Also captioned the mosque image to fit into demographics.
 * I've removed the rail map, cleaned up some of the lead-in gramamar and some in the article. The odd sentences do not appear incorrect in my word processor and so its a little difficult to catch it. Nichalp 19:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * The infobox now sticks out to the side because it does not fit, and the civic administration section has a huge gap at the bottom. This article desperately needs more content. Páll 19:46, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)I've removed the space after civic administration. 2) I strongly disagree that the article lacks content. Wikipedia recommends that most pages be under 30kb. This page is ~29.8kb. I religiously stick to this limit in all my articles, providing a summary of the salient points and moving detail to other articles so that the result is not a long and winding article. Since I've made main articles for expansion purposes, it is well within the wikipedia conventions. 3) What do you mean by  "infobox now sticks out to the side" ? IMO Its probably a browser quirk. I've tested the page (my resolution is 800x600) on Opera 7.54 and Mozilla and cannot see any problems. Nichalp 20:36, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Páll, This is what I have done: 1) Cleaned up some odd grammar. 2) Removed the rail map 3) Added the reason why Mumbai was renamed (Detailed report will come later) 4) Cleaned up the images by adding them is relevant sections 5) Removed the gaps after each section. What I cannot do is: 1) fix the infobox as I cannot replicate the quirk on my browser. 2) add more detail to the page. From The 32KB (warning comes at 30kb) recommendation is considered by some to have stylistic value; if your article is longer than that, sections probably should be summarised. I would prefer that the page be a summary and detail moved to the main articles. Nichalp 19:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I guess that I have taken care of all your objections then? Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: Páll is right about the images. Find more representative images and most of all fix the layout. I will support this article once the images are fixed. Otherwise, nice. Support Phils 21:40, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article with the right amount of images. But can you please move the main infobox to the lead section. It looks better that way and one shouldn't have to scroll for that information. pamri 03:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support (As stated in the nomination, I did minor copyedits.) -- Sundar 04:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Can't think of what else can be added or taken away. Gaurav 05:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support There are numerous instances where the phrasing of a sentence seems odd to me, but I'm prepared to accept that this might reflect Indian English practice. I would recommend moving the transport map to its subarticle, it doesn't add much where it is. Fawcett5 22:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are some sentences that seem odd. I've cleaned up some of the quirks. It would be nice if you could point out further mistakes as they are hard to spot in my word processor. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Just move the infobox up to the very top and it'll be excellent, but it is great by the way it is already. Squash 05:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If seen a couple of discussions on the placement of the infobox. Most place it after a paragraph or two so that the lead-in doesn't look squeezed to the left. Nichalp 19:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is new to me, such a policy I never heard of before. Squash 23:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't put it as policy. Articles such as India do have the infobox a little lower. But its really personal preferences as far as I've seen. I don't know if there are any guidelines as to where the box should be. Nichalp 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you are interested, I could work on the infobox to make it similar to Infobox:India_City (example page Mysore).--IMpbt 18:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I feel that the Mumbai infobox is adequately informative. I have some reservations on the Mysore infobox (I'll mention it on that talk page.) Nichalp 19:16, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay if it's a personal preference then don't worry about it, just checking :) Squash 05:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is certainly one of the broadest and best organized city articles I've seen, but not having any info on 'notable natives' is inconsistent with the relevant WikiProject's guidelines. Also, while they aren't mentioned there, I'm used to seeing info on twin towns and city in literature content in the most complete city articles. These would all work as 'see alsos' so I don't think size should be a problem. Niteowlneils 03:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I had initially thought of adding the sister cities but didn't have the information as to where to find the info after a google search. However after deep searching I have managed to locate all five sister cities and have added them under culture. 2) The "Notable natives" are the guidelines for US cities. I'm not sure as to who qualifies as "notable" and who not, since there are a *lot* of famous residents. Perhaps a dedicated list on another page would be the best thing. Nichalp 18:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that the cities WikiProject as currently written is rather US-centric. However, city articles as diverse as Cairo, Adelaide, and Zürich all have lists of notable people from their city. Picking names off of 'what links here' seems like the most effective way to start such a list. I must admit, looking at a bunch of other city articles has enhanced my appreciation of this one, and the other city FAs--most WP large city articles are either a real mess (eg Cairo or Los Angeles, California) or woefully under-developed (eg Nairobi). Niteowlneils 00:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting way to start making a page on it prominent citizens. I'll do that later on as 1) I feel that it is an ancillary topic as it doesn't add too much info on the city 2) I'm working on another FA article to submit soon. I don't have any problems on the prominent citizens, but it will be on a new page. I also agree with you that a lot of cities have poor information, mostly in lists et al. Some like Calcutta are informative but boring and long. It would be great if each wikipedian adopts his home city and works on it to be a FA. Nichalp 20:35, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a page for the notable residents and listed it in the ==see also== section under others. Its stubby, I know, but I hope others can also contribute to it. Nichalp 20:43, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. - Taxman 14:33, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)