Wikipedia:Peer review/Mumbai/archive4

Mumbai
I've listed this article for peer review because this article has been a FA in the past and is currently a GA. The previous PR of this article was done 11 years ago and the issues pointed out in the PR were still present. I recently fixed most of them, so I'm listing this here again. I'd appreciate all feedback and suggestions. Please also let me know on the encyclopedic tone of the article.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Amazingcaptain (talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps
 * The lead says Mumbai is "...the entertainment capital of India". Where is that in the article and more importantly, where is the reference? --Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the culture section, the first paragraph, which makes some fairly bold claims, is completely unreferenced. --Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if "Art Deco styled landmarks can be found along the Marine Drive and west of the Oval Maidan" had a reference, although you could argue that it isn't controversial.--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mumbai has the second largest number of Art Deco buildings in the world after Miami". Needs a reference.--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mumbai has by far the largest number of skyscrapers in India, with 956 existing buildings and 272 under construction as of 2009". Needs a reference.--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "In the newer suburbs, modern buildings dominate the landscape". Isn't that sentence rather redundant? Aren't newer suburbs bound to be dominated by modern buildings?--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Is a separate sub-heading for the entomology of people from Mumbai necessary?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Mumbai is built on what was once an archipelago of seven islands ..., sounds clumsy. What about, built on an ancient archipelago or historic archipelago?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "It is not exactly known when... It is not known exactly when... (It is the exactness of time that is the subject of the sentence, not the exactness of the knowledge).--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "...suggest that the islands were inhabited since the South Asian Stone Age". As today is since the South-Asian stone age, this sentence is rather meaningless. Does it mean, the islands have been inhabited....?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps consider having a copyedit done?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come.--Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am stopping this review as no-one seems interested in either it or the article. If anyone comes back to this, my first piece of advice would be to get a copyedit. I have found a few more examples of poor sentence construction and bad grammar.--Ykraps (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)