Wikipedia:Peer review/Mumbai/archive4

Mumbai

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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.

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

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)[reply]
In the culture section, the first paragraph, which makes some fairly bold claims, is completely unreferenced. --Ykraps (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Is a separate sub-heading for the entomology of people from Mumbai necessary?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"...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)[reply]
Perhaps consider having a copyedit done?--Ykraps (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]