Wikipedia:Peer review/Mumbai/archive1

Mumbai
Wrote an exhaustive article. Need it proofread as well as feedback, suggestions, critique and images (if possible). Please also let me know on the encyclopedic tone and if further references are needed on contentitious issues. Nichalp 20:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Very good overall. Looks pretty complete. Points for improvement: 1) The beginning of the lead uses too many technical terms without explaining them well and almost in a self agrandizing way. Is pointing out that it is the largest conurbation really that critical? If so, it should be worked in a little smoother. The lead should ease the reader into the subject, not require the reading of three other articles just to get what the sentence means. 2) Three references is pretty minimal. And the BMC site would not be considered as entirely unbiased of course. No source is, but you get what I mean. Ideally cite individual important or contentious facts directly to reliable sources. Consider the format at Footnotes. - Taxman 00:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I referenced most of the parts relating to the geography and government from the BMC site. Figures in the economy section are taken from Manorama. Most of the other parts are "common knowledge" and I don't know if it should have references. Just asking: wouldn't the "Further Reading" section mitigate the "common knowledge" issue? What should be the ideal Reference limits?
 * Well ideal referencing is any fact that could reasonably be disputed would be cited to the most authoritative source available. For truly common knowledge things it is not as critical for sure, but what you may consider common knowledge I may find novel or unbelievable. So just work from the most contentious facts on down and that will be a great start. - Taxman 22:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think if there was anything controversial on the page it should have gone by now due to relentless copyediting by many. :) Nichalp 20:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the connurbation part should come in the lead-in. That's the only thing that the city is the world's #1 in. Should I put a defination for the two terms in brackets? (It would look ugly, I've made a minor edit on the page -- added outlying so that a reader could guess the meaning.) Nichalp 20:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Re-ordering helped that issue a bit, but yes, agglomeration could use a parenthetical explanation so that the difference between that and connurbation is clearer. I see your point that it should be in there as it is an important fact about the city, but the explanations would help since most people will not know what those words mean. - Taxman 22:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll try and do that Nichalp 20:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) Made a few improvements. Nichalp 19:55, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks pretty good. I'll give it a copyedit if I have time.  There are still a couple of "todo"s on the talk page; should it be at Bombay (I can't see much discussion on the talk page)? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time off. It should be Mumbai. Nichalp 20:13, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, it was pretty good already, but fresh eyes are always a good idea. I'm still not convincede that Mumbai (or Chennai, Kolkata ...) is the most common name.  Yes, official name; yes, 10^9 Indians; but Bombay Stock Exchange, Bombay duck... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think we should favor the correct name over the common name. The common name is a bastardization, and Mumbai is becoming more and more common. Besides, it could fall under the case where the guidelines say not to use the common name if many people find it offensive. Most of those things that use the old name are not directly about the city itself. As long as there are redirects in place and the lead clearly notes that the former name is Bombay then its not a real big deal anyway. - Taxman 22:47, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't get into the naming debate, but city institutions were free choose whatever name they wanted and shouldn't be confused with the name of the city. Nichalp 20:32, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)