Mumbai Mirror has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 9, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mumbai Mirror article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mumbai Mirror appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 July 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Please don't remove the section on Political Alignment as user Defcon has done. There is an infobox that states its political alignment and it has to be explained/described in greater detail in the article. All newspapers and magazines have a section on political leanings. Why is he/she not being NPOV and removing it on Mirror? Heartily ( talk) 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't remove it altogether as details are important, or the article looks too short and like a stub, our goal isn't to prevent the page from developing, but we cannot allow material that has been challenged to be reinstated without adequate sourcing. Developing a page is hard work, but it can be done if you put in the effort and avoid getting yourself blocked for edit warring. You'll need to find more good sources, though. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Heartily, based off my comment, we had consensus to add the two lines currently at the top of the political alignment section. We did not and still do not have consensus to add the rest of the section that you re-added, or to add "left-wing" to the lead. I would suggest that you undo your most recent two edits, as that is a show of good faith and will reduce the chance that you are blocked. Then, if you want to add more to the political alignment section, find reliable secondary sources for it (keeping in mind the original research policy linked above), propose it here at the talk page, and if others agree, then add it to the article. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Mumbai Mirror is owned by Times Group. The source I added mentioned Times of India, which is owned by the same company. The political alignment cannot be different for different departments of the same company. 203.212.220.31 ( talk) 14:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Tayi Arajakate ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: to sell 200'000 in its inaugural issue is remarkable feat, (1 lakh are 100'000, had to look it up, too) it is neutral and no copy bio issues as per Earwig. ALT1 and ALT2 (AGF on the sourcing) might also be good. I prefer ALT0 as I see this as a remarkable feat, ALT1 is a bit on sex sells, but of course we are also encouraged to see how many page views we get here. ALT2 is maybe a bit too specific, at least for me it is. Bottom line, the DYK is good to go, and I leave it the prepper which question we use. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Some pruning needs to be done. Also as a defunct newspaper that's not in daily print anymore but weekly, this article does make it read like a promotion. BombaiyyaMag ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -ink&fables ( talk · contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article looks really good. Would leave a review very soon.
-ink&fables
«talk»
16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Tayi Arajakate: The article was really easy to review because of its quality. There are few #Suggestions which I would like to share. Please let me know if you disagree with anything proposed. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
On hold Waiting for the improvements and comments (if any) from the nominator.
-ink&fables
«talk»
06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Excessive edits from now blocked sock and likely UPE. Tagging as it it need a thorough check for NPOV, verify sources, etc. CNMall41 ( talk) 01:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Mumbai Mirror has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 9, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mumbai Mirror article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Mumbai Mirror appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 July 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Please don't remove the section on Political Alignment as user Defcon has done. There is an infobox that states its political alignment and it has to be explained/described in greater detail in the article. All newspapers and magazines have a section on political leanings. Why is he/she not being NPOV and removing it on Mirror? Heartily ( talk) 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Don't remove it altogether as details are important, or the article looks too short and like a stub, our goal isn't to prevent the page from developing, but we cannot allow material that has been challenged to be reinstated without adequate sourcing. Developing a page is hard work, but it can be done if you put in the effort and avoid getting yourself blocked for edit warring. You'll need to find more good sources, though. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 07:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Heartily, based off my comment, we had consensus to add the two lines currently at the top of the political alignment section. We did not and still do not have consensus to add the rest of the section that you re-added, or to add "left-wing" to the lead. I would suggest that you undo your most recent two edits, as that is a show of good faith and will reduce the chance that you are blocked. Then, if you want to add more to the political alignment section, find reliable secondary sources for it (keeping in mind the original research policy linked above), propose it here at the talk page, and if others agree, then add it to the article. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 08:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Mumbai Mirror is owned by Times Group. The source I added mentioned Times of India, which is owned by the same company. The political alignment cannot be different for different departments of the same company. 203.212.220.31 ( talk) 14:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
5x expanded by Tayi Arajakate ( talk). Self-nominated at 05:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: to sell 200'000 in its inaugural issue is remarkable feat, (1 lakh are 100'000, had to look it up, too) it is neutral and no copy bio issues as per Earwig. ALT1 and ALT2 (AGF on the sourcing) might also be good. I prefer ALT0 as I see this as a remarkable feat, ALT1 is a bit on sex sells, but of course we are also encouraged to see how many page views we get here. ALT2 is maybe a bit too specific, at least for me it is. Bottom line, the DYK is good to go, and I leave it the prepper which question we use. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Some pruning needs to be done. Also as a defunct newspaper that's not in daily print anymore but weekly, this article does make it read like a promotion. BombaiyyaMag ( talk) 19:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: -ink&fables ( talk · contribs) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article looks really good. Would leave a review very soon.
-ink&fables
«talk»
16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Tayi Arajakate: The article was really easy to review because of its quality. There are few #Suggestions which I would like to share. Please let me know if you disagree with anything proposed. -ink&fables «talk» 06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
On hold Waiting for the improvements and comments (if any) from the nominator.
-ink&fables
«talk»
06:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Excessive edits from now blocked sock and likely UPE. Tagging as it it need a thorough check for NPOV, verify sources, etc. CNMall41 ( talk) 01:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)