Talk:Gateway of India/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Pleased to pick this one up. Should be done in a few days, maybe sooner. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks, KJP1! Eagerly looking forward to it. I had one request. I had nominated the article under the "Art and architecture" category while it had been a GA under the "Geography and places" category until 2018. I was curious if through the process it would be possible to have it under the "Geography and places" GA category instead. --Tamravidhir (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The article contains copyright violations – see Wikipedia:Copyright violations.

   • 

3. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

4. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

5. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

6. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

All looks ok. Main review to follow.

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Generally, this is fine, but some thoughts/queries below:

Lead

• Chronology - The aim, and dates for construction puzzle me. The lead says "the foundation stone for the gateway was laid on 31 March 1911" The body says "construction did not begin until 1915. The foundation stone was laid on 31 March 1913 by the governor of Bombay, Sir George Sydenham Clarke with the final design of George Wittet sanctioned on 31 March 1914". They can't both be right. My only available source is Stones of Empire: The buildings of the Raj. This suggests that the temporary structure was intended for the visit and that the actual arch was built as a commemoration after the event, rather than the arch was unfinished at the time of the visit, as suggested by the lead. Can it be clarified?

As below - if you've Reliable Sources saying different things, I'd probably reflect this, either in the body of the text, or in a footnote, e.g. "sources differ as to the year in which the foundation stone was laid. X says 1, while Y says 2", or some such.

• "a mock cardboard structure" - Stones of Empire says the original arch was built of plaster, although I appreciate your source(3) does say "mock cardboard and pastiche". I'm not sure I understand "pastiche" in this context, and plaster sounds more likely. Do you have any other sources?

Given that you've reliable sources saying different things, I'd probably put a footnote in to that effect. So: Source = Morris, Jan (1986). Stones of Empire: The Buildings of the Raj. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-282036-2. Sorry, I can only do sfn these days.

• "It stood reflecting the majesty of the imperial British Raj in south Asia." - This sounds a little POV, and I'm not quite sure I get its meaning.  Done
• "The gateway faced a terror attack in 2003" - can a structure "face" an attack?  Done
• "thronged to its premises" - not that clear.  Done
• "In March 2019, the Maharashtra state government proposed on implementing a four-step plan" - does "on implementing" add anything?  Done

History and significance

• General - does this need to be 6, very short, para.s?  Done
• Need to clarify the construction dates, see above.
• "In its early days, the gateway remained amongst the first structures visible to visitors" - presumably it still is? Perhaps, "From the time of its construction, the gateway has been among the first structures visible to visitors …"  Done
• "Between 1915 and 1919, work continued at the Apollo Bunder to reclaim the land on which the gateway was to be built, along with a new sea wall" - this doesn't quite work. Perhaps, "Between 1915 and 1919 work continued at the Apollo Bunder to reclaim the land on which the gateway was to be built, along with the construction of a new sea wall."  Done
• "The gateway was opened to the public on 4 December 1924 by the viceroy Earl of Reading" - he was a marquess, not an earl, thus, "The gateway was opened to the public on 4 December 1924 by the viceroy, the Marquess of Reading".  Done
• "the gateway has been the spot for the local Jewish community to light the menorah for Hanukkah celebrations every year" - a little unencyclopedic.? Perhaps "the gateway has been the location for the local Jewish community to celebrate Hanukkah by the lighting of the menorah.to light the menorah for Hanukkah celebrations every year, a ritual started by Rabbi....."  Done

Design and architecture

• "The monument is built in yellow basalt" - link basalt, here or in the lead?  Done in lead
• "known as the Indo-Saracenic" - I would certainly link Indo-Saracenic.  Done already linked in lead
• "borne mainly by the then government of India" - I'd probably simplify as "borne (mainly) by the government". As to the "mainly", who else other than the government contributed?
• "to digitally preserve the gateway, by digital scanning and archiving the monument" - two points. First, I think there should be an "of", here, "by digital scanning and archiving of the monument". Second, I appreciate it is what the source says, but aren't they really digitally recording the monument, rather than preserving it? I suppose they're "preserving a digital record", so just ignore me.
• "It involves employing aerial surveys conducted with drones, terrestrial laser scanning (LiDAR), and photogrammetry exercises" -I think "employing" is redundant, and I'd certainly link photogrammetry as I'd never heard the term  Done
• "The drawing and three-dimensional models will help in understanding any future changes to the monument and its structure" - having read the cite, I don't think the digital record will help "understanding" future changes, rather it will inform them. I'd suggest something like, "The drawings and three-dimensional models will inform any future reconstruction works."  Done

Location and jetties

• "The other statue in the premises is that of Swami Vivekananda." - "Changes "premises" to "locality"? And maybe a word or two on who Vivekananda was, "the monk and philosopher/thinker, Swami Vivekananda"?  Done
• "the starting point for tourists to reach the Elephanta Caves, which is fifty minutes away" - "which are".  Done
• "The Mumbai Port Trust permits vessels to ply from the gateway" - perhaps, "The Mumbai Port Trust licenses vessels to use the gateway"  Done

Tourism and development

• "It is also a regular place to congregate for locals, street vendors, and photographers" - perhaps "It is also a regular meeting / gathering place for locals, street vendors, and photographers"  Done
• "The gateway can host 2,000 to 2,500 people, whereas Elephanta Caves could host only 700 to 800 people" - I'd drop the second "people".
• "and closing down of the car parking area" - suggest "and closing the car park".  Done
• "There was a dispute over the plans prepared for the project in between Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) and Urban Design Research Institute, and the government was criticised for poor implementation of the project which strayed from the original plan" - suggests "The redevelopment led to a dispute between the Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) and the Urban Design Research Institute, and the government was criticised for poor project implementation which critics alleged had failed to conform to the original plans", or some such.  Done
• "undertook the expenditure of ₹2 crores to light up the gateway" - suggest "undertook the expenditure of ₹2 crores to illuminate the gateway".  Done
• "In 2015, the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority cleared a proposal to construct a passenger jetty near Apollo Bunder and a promenade between the gateway and the Bombay Presidency Radio Club. The project was aimed at reducing crowd at the gateway by closing all its jetties and retaining its premises exclusively as tourist attraction" - suggest - "In 2015, the Maharashtra Maritime Board and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority approved a proposal to construct a passenger jetty near Apollo Bunder and a promenade between the gateway and the Bombay Presidency Radio Club. The project was aimed at reducing crowding at the gateway by closing all its jetties and refocusing the location solely as a tourist attraction".  Done
• "who have expressed their wish maintain its premises and also build toilet facilities" - suggest "who have expressed their wish to maintain the arch's setting and enhance its facilities".  Done partly instead of arch's setting used the gateway, as I wasn't confident of the former
• "While another mode of generating revenue for sponsors is to sell tickets and charge tourists for the use of facilities established by them" - suggest "Other revenue-generating opportunities include the sale of entry tickets to the site and charging for the use of facilities".  Done
• "Following which in March 2019, the state government decided on implementing a plan to manage tourists visiting the site. It proposed adopting a four-step process involving - physical conservation of the monument, a light-and-sound show, relocation of the anchorage around the monument, and a streamlined ticketed entry" - suggest "In March 2019 the state government agreed on a four-stage plan to manage tourists visiting the site. This involved the physical conservation of the monument, the installation of a sound-and-light show, the relocation of the anchorage around the monument and a streamlined, ticketed entry system".  Done
• "The plan was proposed in light of global UNESCO norms for protected heritage sites and in light of the various stakeholders, namely..." - suggest "The plan followed UNESCO guidance for protected heritage sites and took into account the views of interested parties, including..."  Done
• "In August 2019, Snapchat extended its landmarker features to the gateway by which users can superimpose augmented reality experiences on top of their pictures of the gateway" - not sure this is essential to the history of the monument, but if you want it, I'd suggest Landmarker needs capitalisation.

Events and incidents

• "It happened when a taxi containing the bomb, parked near the Taj Mahal hotel, blasted reportedly throwing people around into the sea" - suggest "The force of the explosion, from a bomb in a taxi parked near the Taj Mahal hotel, reportedly threw bystanders into the sea".  Done
• "While on New Year's Eve, 2007 a woman was groped by a mob at the gateway" - again, not sure this is a central fact, but if you want it, drop the "While".
• "Suspecting attacks targeting the gateway and the Elephanta caves, the state government proposed to close all jetties at the gateway and their consequent replacement with two newer ones built near the Bombay Presidency Radio Club" - suggests "Fearing further attacks on the gateway and on the Elephanta caves, the state government proposed the closure of all of the jetties at the gateway and their replacement with two new piers, to be built near the Bombay Presidency Radio Club".  Done

Footnotes

• B - there's a missing end set of quote marks after gaze" for the Kamala quote. the comma at the end of the Niranjana quote should be before the cite. The full stop in the Trevelyan quote should go before the cite. Then, there's a capital H in WHile. Then, it ends with quote marks for Sherry SimonPaul Saint-Pierre, but where are the quote marks to start this quote? Having four separate quotes in one Footnote makes it rather confusing to unpick!
• C - you've got a double "the The Taj Mahal Palace Hotel". And doesn't this need reversing with D?

I didn't get the reversing bit. Tamravidhir (talk) 13:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added new footnotes. Please check. Tamravidhir (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

b (MoS)

• Not my forte, but looks ok to me.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references)

• The article is well-cited. I've done spot checks on the one-line sources, and the Jan Morris which I have, and they are all fine.

b (citations to reliable sources)

A few queries here.

Notes and news reports

• Source 1 - is a quiz on Rediff the best source? This says the same thing [1].  Done replaced with better sources
• Sources 4/5/41 - these are the same source but you spell the author in four different ways, Pippa, Pipa, deBruyn and de Bruyn. They need to be consistent and accurate. It is Pippa de Bruyn. She also appears twice in the Books and journals - once the 2008 edition and one the 2010. Do you want both?
• Sources 6/11/12/16/53 - somehow, you've managed to crash the two authors together, e.g. "Sherry SimonPaul St-Pierre", when they should all be as per Source 19, "Sherry Simon & Paul St-Pierre". I've tried to sort them out but can't.
• Source 40 - typo in "monumnt".

Books and journals

• General - there's quite a bit of inconsistency in the cites. For example, some journal names are italicised (e.g. Source 5), while others aren't (e.g. Sources 2/8). There are a range of isbn styles, most 13 digits but not cited in a consistent way, while de Bruyn is a 10-digit number. None of this is necessary for Good Article, but if you ever want to take it further, you'll need to sort them. Likewise with publishers' locations. Fine not to have them for GA, but needed if you want to take it further.  Done will add publisher's location soon
• Charles Edward Trevelyan - shouldn't he be under T not C in the list of Sources? There may be a few more like this; Gupta, Kapoor?, Bradnock certainly.

I kept the list per alphabetical order based on what the first letter in the source is, irrespective of if whether it was the first letter of the first name/the last name. Please let me know if the order should be changed. Tamravidhir (talk)

I always do them alphabetically by author surname, which seems to be the convention for FAs, but I don't think it's a GA criteria. I suspect you might need to change them if you want to take it further. I do find alphabetic by author the easiest to read/check. KJP1 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Charles Edward Trevelyan and Jan Morris - you could authorlink both of these.

c (OR)

• No indication of OR.

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations)

• This is puzzling me a bit. It was thought to be an issue at the GA reassessment, but the diff is showing only 14.5% on Earwig, which it still is. However, the similarities seem reasonable to me, e.g. titles such as 'Maharashtra Vaibhav State Protected Monuments Adoption Scheme (MVSPMAS)', and this will drop further if some of the prose suggestions are followed. I'll seek further advice when the nominator has had the opportunity to review the prose suggestions.

@KJP1: Currently the diff. is at 14%-ish. The link on the reassessment page takes you to comparison of current version of the article with its links. I checked with the old 27 December 2018 ID here. The result was as high as 92.2%. I shall resolve the issues raised ASAP. Tamravidhir (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying. At 14%, which may drop a bit further, it won’t be a problem. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, dropped to 9ish. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its scope

a (major aspects)

• I think it covers all major aspects of the structure's architecture and history.

b (focused):

• Don't think it strays from the main focus.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy

• Neutrality is fine.

5. It is stable

• It's stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

• These look ok to me.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• I love photos in architecture articles, as they literally are worth a thousand words. And the old negative view of Galleries appears no longer to hold. But I do wonder about the need for some of them, in particular? -

• Does the army clean-up add much?
• the 7th in the Gallery, Illuminated Gateway, appears very similar to the 9th, Beating the Retreat
• The 11th and 12th both seem unnecessary to me. The photographer doesn't show the Gate, and the farmers' protest isn't that great an image.

@KJP1: The cleaning drive image was added for the purposes of illustrating "development" and that people engage in such voluntary cleaning drives at the gateway given its historical and local importance. Given further that there is a reference to Philips illuminating the gateway in that section, an evening image of the illuminated gateway could be replaced with the cleaning drive image. With regards to the photographer's and farmers' images, I am biased in favour of including them in the article. I included them primarily to establish the reclaiming of the space by locals and reuse of the imperial by the subaltern. Because minus the human connect, the gateway stands isolated and cold. I would want to hear your views regarding this. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem - you've done the work on the article and it's your decision. The issues aren't GAR criteria, and images always are a bit of a personal preference! KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Overall: Pass/Fail:

Discussion

Thank you for your comments. I shall get working on fixing these issues as soon as I could, and will get back to you here. --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely fine! No hurry, it's taking me a bit longer to review than planned. I've given us a Discussion space here to talk things through. KJP1 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. I am looking into sources for the anomaly of facts with regards to construction and laying of foundation stone, and also the issue involving the cardboard pastiche structure.

I have removed the "proposed on implementing" as proposal is obviously aimed at implementation, I have also changed "faced" an attack to "was the site for" a terror attack.

With regards to POV, I meant to state that the structure was an attempt by the Raj to establish among natives and Europeans awe for its majesty. I will look for a bit more sources and change the language to suit NPOV. Lastly, with regards to the "thronged" issue, this source uses the term "flocked". What had happened post the 26 November 2008 attacks was an immediate influx of onlookers to the gateway premises to gaze at the Taj hotel, with its burning dome and people trying to jump out of the windows/begging for help. Could you suggest any better word to establish a more informed meaning? --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have merged the paras under the "history and significance" section into three — first para focusing on the Raj and its departure, second para focusing on its important as a colonial legacy, and a much smaller third para focusing on the use of the space by the Jewish community. --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

For now, I have changed "thronged" to "congregated". --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the cardboard structure I came across this source but have been unable to access it. This other source refers to the cardboard structure but is also the first source that is referring to the structure as the "Taj Mahal of Mumbai" which is uncanny given that it has no remote resemblance to the Mughal queen's mausoleum. With regards to it reflecting awe for the British imperial rule, I found these two sources at Jstor — Kamala, N. (2000). GATEWAY OF INDIA: REPRESENTING THE NATION IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION. In Simon S. & St-Pierre P. (Eds.), Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era (pp. 245-260). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. (already cited in the article) and Chatterji, M. (1997). Gateway to the Globe. The World Today, 53(8/9), 233-234.. Could you suggest a neutral way to put this out? Would be looking forward to hear from you. --Tamravidhir (talk) 12:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Will look at these later but that's all I've time for today. KJP1 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The two issues remaining are sources regarding the cardboard structure and clarification of the foundation stone date. I have removed the word "mock" before cardboard structure from the lead and have added a few more sources. I have also tried to rework the presentation of sources on the article, and removed a few unreliable sources. With regards to the foundation date, while every document I came across mentions 1911 and it may have been a slip of a finger there's this one source which mentions the year as 1913 and not 1911. Would be looking forward to hear from you! --Tamravidhir (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This source calling the gateway the "Taj Mahal of Mumbai" turns out to be actually fiction. --Tamravidhir (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

See my suggestion for a Footnote re. the original arch's construction material. I'm thinking of something like Note o here. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Right - just the MoS and the Sources to go. I'll have it done today. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have resolved most of the issues, minus the foundation date/sanction date for design and temporary structure material variation sources. I will do that over the night, perhaps, as a bit caught up otherwise. Indo-Saracenic is already linked in the lead so I have not linked it again. I have refrained from using arch's setting and rather used the gateway (w.r.t buller #7 under "tourism and development" of the review here). With regards to the cost mainly borne by the government. The same language is used in most books. The old version of the article also used the same term. I understand that this book has a mention of who paid for the cost at p. 205 but I have been unable to access it. I also have to add to the section that it was 21 lakhs in INR and the construction firm was Gammon, for which I have a source. Lastly, the Snapchat info was added by an IP while the groping incident has been carried forward through the history of the article. I am okay if they are not mentioned in the article, so I will leave the final decision of their inclusion up to you. Hoping to hear from you. I will do my part as soon as I could. Please bear with me. Tamravidhir (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No worry and no hurry! You're responding very quickly and we can easily wrap it up sometime next week. Enjoy your Sunday. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

There is an image of the construction of the gateway [www.gammonindia.com/projects/landmark-project-for-gammon-india.htm# here]? Do you think it would be in public domain? Tamravidhir (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added more information. Would be looking forward to hear from you. I will fix rest of the issues ASAP. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: The publisher's locations are not there on Google Books. Please suggest how to go forward with that. Tamravidhir (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Fun fact: I just got to know today after some digging that the Shivaji statue which stands at the gateway today in fact replaced an earlier statue of George V. The canopy at India Gate also had a statue of him. In both the cities there was a strong movement to have the statues removed in the 60's. In fact, the statue at Delhi had been vandalised and consequently its nose broken. There is a humorous Hindi story on the same title George Pancham Ki Naak (lit. The nose of George the fifth) by Kamaleshwar. But unlike the Delhi statue which found its new home at the Coronation Park, Delhi the Mumbai statue lies locked up at a tin shed. Mid Day has thankfully enough been the only daily to have reported on it in 2016: [2]. Here is an image of the gateway statue from the 50's: [3]. Tamravidhir (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC) Tamravidhir (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting how an entire generation of people have entirely forgotten about the George V statue. Tamravidhir (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

So, noted historian Sharada Dwivedi mentions the foundation stone been laid in 1913 but there are many other random sources (not by historians) mentioning it happening in 1911. A few sources used in the article to verify other information quote the 1911 date. Please suggest what to do. Also, if you could check what Stones of Empire mentions. I can only hold a historian/researcher-academician in high regard with regards to this. Tamravidhir (talk)

Tamravidhir - really sorry - got distracted and work was busy today. Shall be back on to this very soon. KJP1 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it's all cool. Take your time. I understand. Also, it's interesting how people let errors slip past without scrutiny. Look at Monojit here. The date for the royal arrival is given as the year 1922 when it is 1911 no doubt. The same issue may have happened with the foundation stone dates. Note, Monojit is not a historian but an economist. Similarly, I have more faith in Sharada. The issue which remains from my side is concerning this date, the reverting of the ref you noted (which I am afraid I did not understand), and the arranging of the sources under "books and journals". Lastly, I now just have too add some more information from here and here. Tamravidhir (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: What's the update on this? --Tamravidhir (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Tamravidhir - I'm really sorry. Real-life work, and a debate over an article I've worked on that is due to appear on the front page, have distracted me. I promise that I will be done over the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues yet to be resolved:

• Dates for laying of foundations/diff. sources

Right - that's me done. Really sorry that it took longer than anticipated. If you can just take a look at the Source comments, I think we are good to go. KJP1 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tried and fixed the sources. I have mentioned both editions of Frommer's India as I have been unable to locate that information cited from the 2008 edition on a particular page of the 2010 edition. With regards to the alphabetisation of the sources, I will keep that in mind if I take the article further. I am a bit worked up irl at the moment, and I am afraid I will be unable to look into them now. Tamravidhir (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: This has been too long. Please draw a conclusion. Tamravidhir (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought the ball was in your court - some of the ref.s are still compacted. But it's good to go. KJP1 (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thank you! I may not be able to look into them at the moment, as I would not be as active on Wikipedia, but I would get back to them when I could. Tamravidhir (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)