Wikipedia:Peer review/Mumbai/archive2

Mumbai

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this was delisted in the FAR process. Comments to elevate this article to FA status again will be helpful. Thanks, Kensplanet TC 17:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

When this goes to FAC, Ealdgyth will ask you about the ancient sources used in the history. While da Cunha was labelled 1993, it is re-scan of a really old book. Are newer ones available?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still a few pp 7-8 with hyphens not ndash
 * I couldn't find the 25% of industrial output in the main body. The lead is not supposed to introduce new information. If it isn't already, add it in the main body. Does Mumbai really make 25% of factory goods in all of India???
 * Might get more questions about Green and Fairclough as it is a "juvenile non-fiction" book targeted at younger children.
 * The FA reviewers will probably ask for a copyedit. I could find some oddities in there.
 * "largest" can be ambiguous. Is this the population or the size of the official city boundary?
 * In the lead "7" is used. Single digit numbers are supposed to be spelled out