Talk:History of Bombay under Portuguese rule (1534–1661)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold

My preferred way of working on a WP:GAN is to do an initial review to see whether an article should be quick failed and then, usually, do an initial review (leaving the WP:lead until last) followed up by a more detailed review. However in this case I'm going to put the article On Hold directly as I consider it to have a flaw that needs to be addressed before the review can continue.

This article has very much the makings of a WP:GA, as the article appears to be adequately referenced and well illustrated, however I think the article does not provide an adequate description of the History of Bombay to readers unfamiliar with Bombay.

The problem starts in the WP:lead, with the lead being written (logically) from a present-day perspective, i.e.: "In place of the present day city was an archipelago of seven islands". It is also copied into the Accession of Bombay to the Portuguese section and more confusing information is given, i.e. "In place of the present day city was an archipelago of seven islands: Bombay Island (Bombaim), Parel, Mazagaon, Mahim, Colaba, Worli, and Old Woman's Island (also known as Little Colaba).[1] The Salsette group of islands were located east of Bombay, separated by the Mahim Bay.[2] Important strategic towns located near Bombay were; Bassein (Baçaim) to the north, Thane to the east, and Chaul to the south." No further details are given; and this lack of information is a fatal flaw. Looking at the Seven islands of Bombay article gives a helpful map, i.e.

and looking at Mumbai gives another map, i.e.

The metropolis consists of the Mumbai city, Mumbai suburban district and also the cities of Navi Mumbai and Thane

It becomes fairly obvious that land has been recovered, but this article fails to adequately describe whether any of this land recovery was taking place during the scope of this article; neither does it provide any diagram to clarify the confusion caused by inadequate description of the areas under consideration. Pyrotec (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009

I agree the word "Bombay" is very very confusing......

Bombay can mean 4 different areas....

Bombay Island: An island named Bombay, which was just one of the seven islands.
Bombay City: This word means the main city.
Bombay: This includes the above Bombay City as well as Bombay Suburbs. Whenever someone refers to the city as of today, it actually means both Bombay City as well as the suburbs.
Bombay Presidency: This was a huge area which included 27 districts. Kensplanet^T _C 04:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the land recovery thing, the land was not recovered during the Portuguese regime. It was recovered during the British regime. It was started by William Hornby in 1784, Governor of Bombay (1771-84). The project was Hornby Vellard. The unification occured during the late 18th and 19th century. Kensplanet^T _C 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It would be very kind of you if you tell us what sort of information needs to be added. Kensplanet^T _C 05:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your recent edits to the article have considerably clarified the situation, so I will continue with the assessment.Pyrotec (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Not noticing that the article is actually currently being reviewed for GA, I have conducted a peer review at WP:Peer_review/History_of_Bombay_under_Portuguese_rule_(1534-1661)/archive1, which may provide further pointers. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

This article is basically at GA-level.

Arrival of the Portuguese -

This appears to be fully compliant.

Accession of the islands to the Portuguese -

Reference 17 does not provide adequate verification of the first paragraph. It has a bit about Babur and even less about Humayan; its most about their descendants.
- Cleaned up the section a bit. It speaks about the glory of the Mughal Empire. But the expansion occurred during the regime of the later Mughal rulers like Akbar, Shahjahan etc..not during Humayun and Babur. Added citations too. Kensplanet^T _C 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DonePyrotec (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph appears to be fully compliant.

Development of islands -

The first paragraph appears to be fully compliant.
Second paragraph:

not much in the way of in-line citations, but ref 27 appears to cover the bulk of this;
Orta's death is unreferenced;
- Orta's death has been cited by REF29. Kensplanet^T _C 05:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no in-line citation for Orta's death. Statements are required to comply with WP:Verify.Pyrotec (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

final sentence is OK.

The final paragraph appears to be fully compliant.

End of Portuguese rule -

The first paragraph appears to be fully compliant.
The final paragraph is unreferenced.
- Oh, that was WP:OR. Anyway removed it.

DonePyrotec (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A wide ranging article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Some paragraphs could be improved in respect of citations, but all appear to be acceptable.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
A map of the islands would be useful - they already exist (see above).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the article, I'm awarding GA-status.Pyrotec (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the quick and great review. It was a short and simple article, with not much contents. Kensplanet^T _C 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]