Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Bombay
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [1].
I am nominating this List because I think this List satisfies FL criteria. Thanks, KensplanetTC 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent list. Most of my concerns have been addressed in the PR. "India consisted of regions referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British, and other regions, the Princely States, that were ruled by Indian rulers" should be rephrased/clarified. Reywas92Talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure, it's confusing. I think it's very clear. Can you suggest anything.
|
- Comment Please fix the dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Part One:
- "Till 1996" Too informal, use "Until".
- "The date of foundation of the city"-->The date of city's founding
- "It was
locatedin" - "being bordered"-->it was bordered
- Why have you linked to Bombay when you already linked to Mumbai at the top?
- "now Pakistani"-->now-Pakistani
- "The area of Bombay state increased, after several erstwhile princely states who " "who"-->that.
- "The marriage treaty of Charles II of England and Catherine of Braganza concluded on 8 May 1661" Add that before "concluded".
- "under British rule–the territory was part of Catherine's dowry" wrong dash, use an em dash.
- "In 1753, Bombay was made subordinate to that of Calcutta." What do you mean by "that of"?
- "the British by the Treaty of Salbai signed on 17 May 1782. "-->the British by the Treaty of Salbai, which was signed on 17 May 1782. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all your comments. Some minor prose issues, like the ones you just mentioned, may crop up since the contents of the article has been developed recently during the FLC. I'll try to fix everything soon. KensplanetTC 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Between 1803 and 1827, the framework of the Presidency took shape." "took shape"-->formed.
- "The Gujarat districts of Ahmadabad, Bharuch and Kaira" Wouldn't it be "The Gujarati districts..."?
- "Between 1818 and 1858, certain princely states lke Mandvi in Surat, and Satara were lapsed to the Presidency." Typo, and comma is not necessary.
- "the title continued
for many yearsto be borne by the second member of the Executive Council of the Governor." - "Aden separated from Bombay Presidency in 1932[19] while Sind separated in 1936." "while"-->and.
- "In 1906, Bombay Presidency had four commissionerships and 26 districts with Bombay City as its capital." Comparable quantities should be written the same; i.e. four commissionerships and twenty-six districts or 4 commissionerships and 26 districts.
- "After India's independence in 1947, Bombay Presidency became part of India while Sind province became part of Pakistan."-->After India's gained independence in 1947, Bombay Presidency became part of India, and Sind province became part of Pakistan.
- "It included princely states like"-->It included princely states such as...
- "the Kannada speaking districts"-->the Kannada-speaking districts
- "In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state."-->In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, Congress demanded that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publications should be in italics (ref 54, Time).Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as CUP Archive (Cambridge University Press?)Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with all comments related to Prose. I'll check the Images. KensplanetTC 07:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues need to be checked and resolved. For example, File:SirEvanNepean.JPG is missing an author. Contact User:Awadewit. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All Image issues have been resolved. KensplanetTC 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review As requested by Dabomb87, I did an image review. The following images are problematic:
- File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, File:India 1804 map.jpg, File:Bombay Presidency (1832).jpg, File:Mountstuart-Elphinstone.jpg, File:Bombay, Berar, Aden (1893).jpg, File:Maj Gen Frederick Sykes.jpg In order to be hosted on Commons, an image has to be in the public domain in its source country AND in the United States because our servers are located in Florida. The images' description pages do not give any indication whatsoever about their copyright status in the US. Unless a tag is added explaining why the images are in the public domain in the US, they may not be used in the article.
- I have tagged the 4 maps File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, File:India 1804 map.jpg, File:Bombay Presidency (1832).jpg, File:Bombay, Berar, Aden (1893).jpg with {{PD-1923}} since they all were published before 1923 (see publication details included in image descriptions). Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pict0016WilliamMedows.jpg The link given is dead. The painter's name is not indicated. It is currently not possible to verify whether the work was indeed made "before 1841" as the description page claims.
- What is alive today will be dead tomorrow. There's no gurantee that all URL's will work tomorrow. Does that mean we go on deleting all PD Images obtained on the Net
- I didn't say that. I am just saying that there is nothing whatsoever on the image's description page that proves the claim that it was indeed made "before 1841". Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, including that provided for images. BomBom (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is alive today will be dead tomorrow. There's no gurantee that all URL's will work tomorrow. Does that mean we go on deleting all PD Images obtained on the Net
- File:SirEvanNepean.JPG, File:2ndEarlOfClare.jpeg Nothing on the websites indicates that these are contemporary portraits as the images' description pages claim. Unless the date of creation and/or the painter's death date are given, PD-Art may not be used.
- File:SirRobertGrant.jpg The web link is dead. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to check whether the image was indeed created "before 1900" as is claimed.
- File:Major-General Sir George Arthur.jpg The image is not available on the Archives of Ontario website. I tried looking for it using the reference code given on the image's description page, but couldn't find it.
- File:Baron Lamington.jpg Anonymous works are in the public domain in the US only if created before 1888, which is not the case of this image. Since the photograph was taken in 1897, it is mathematically possible for the author to have been still alive in 1940, rendering the PD-old tag inappropriate. Information about the image's publication history is needed in order to determine its copyright status in the US.
- File:Sir Leslie Wilson.jpg The link provided refers to a totally different photograph. The information on the description page is thus inaccurate.
- File:Pict0016WilliamMedows.jpg The link given is dead. The painter's name is not indicated. It is currently not possible to verify whether the work was indeed made "before 1841" as the description page claims.
All the other images used are OK. BomBom (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All Images removed. There is no way I can make dead URL's alive and prove it for you. So better not to have it. KensplanetTC 07:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support this excellent article for promotion to FL ! I just finished re-reviewing it, and while I had a few quibbles about the previous version (see collapsed comments above), I was greatly impressed by the new version's organization, content, references and (as far as I could tell) adherence to MOS. To take an example, the lead may look a bit long at first glance (4 paras instead of the "recommended" 3), but it is clearly organized to outline (1) the relevant history, geography, and importance of Bombay city; (2) the history and geographical extent(s) of Bombay Presidency; (3) role of the Governor; and (4) landmark Governors and the demise of the office. Similarly, the lead-in paragraphs of each section provide good context for the reader to understand the role/position of the Governor (in relation with both their subjects as well as the Viceroy/EIC etc) and the extent/condition of the region they ruled, during each period. And of course, the "list" of Governors itself is the single best such compilation of the data - among all online and offline resources (believe me; I've checked and the list corrects some errors made by the Government of Maharashtra itself!). In short, kudos to User:Kensplanet and I hope to see this list on the Featured List soon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.