Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Bombay

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].

List of Governors of Bombay

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.
Largely resolved issues. Will re-review later this week. Abecedare (talk)
  • Comment This article has been on my watchlist and I have seen Kensplanet put a tremondous amount of work in improving it steadily over the past few weeks. A few comments/suggestions:
  • Lead:
  • They also served ... by the crown: I think, this content is applicable only for 1858-1947 and may be better placed in that section. Also clarify what is the Council and what two members of the Indian Civil Service for 12 years standing means.
    • Please check Crown Governors section now. Everyting has been clarified.
  • I got some data on council [2]
  • received possession of the islands in 1661 as the dowry: Was this the whole dowry or part of the dowry ? Check source.
    • It was part of the dowry ([3])
  • and subsequent expansions into the city: Into ?
    • Completely rewritten
  • Subsequently the territory kept on expanding: Subsequently is redundant; kept on colloquial (use continued)
    • Completely rewritten
  • became the Bombay Presidency, which included four commissionerships with 26 districts. When did it become Bombay Presidency and at what point did it include our commissionerships with 26 districts ?
    • Completely rewritten
  • In 1782, William Hornby ... completed in 1784.: I think this sentence is not needed, at least in the lead, since the project is significant in the history of Bombay but does not affect the governorships per se.
→ Removed Hornby Vellard Project. It was added based on a PR suggestion. But since we speak only of Bombay Presidency and not Bombay City, the project is not significant enough to appear.
  • After India's independence ... After the state ...: Rephrase to avoid repetition.
    • Rephrased
  • the British Crown took formal possession : Possession or repossession ?
    • Reposession
  • Royal governors:
  • the Portuguese governor: Was this a governor of Bombay ? If so, he and his predecessors should be in the list.
→ For this List, the term Bombay is very confusing. Bombay can mean 3 things here. You can also check File:Sevenislandsofbombay.png
→ Isle of Bombay: A small island named Bombay
→ Bombay City: This includes the Seven islands of Bombay alongwith the Isle of Bombay
→ Bombay Presidency: Much larger than Bombay City
→ Yes, there was a Portuguese Governor for Bombay. But he was the Governor of only Bombaim (Portuguese name for Bombay). Bombaim meant only the Isle of Bombay and not Bombay City with its seven islands. You can check [4] (not reliable but works). That way we had many Governors related to the city. For example, Malik-us-Sharq was the Governor Mahim, a village in Bombay when Bombay was under the Gujarat Sultanate. There may be many many more. It's better we do not include Governors of villages and islands of Bombay in this list.
  • and on the ground of some alleged irregularity in the form of the letters or patent, he refused to give up even Bombay. Simplify and maintain active voice. alledging irregularities in the forms or patents, he refused ...
    • Simplified and maintained Active Voice.
  • Viceroy: Can this be wikilinked to some article/list of Portuguese viceroys of India ?
→ Yes, linked to List of colonial heads of Portuguese India
  • The Portuguese Viceroy declined ... in October 1664. Break into two sentences ?
    • Broke into two
  • Terms column in tables: usually terms denotes the number of terms of office rather than number of years. Why not simply use "Years in office" ?
    • Done
  • Company Governors
  • The island was: The islands were ?
→ Done
  • For the next nineteen years (1668–687), except for occasional visits, and during three years (1672–1675) of Governor Aungier's rule, the Governors of Bombay spent almost the whole of their time in Surat, of which factory they were Presidents: Several issues:
  • Simplify qualifiers.
  • Surat was a factory ?
  • of which factory they were, is awkward construction.
  • Why were 1672-75 an exception; was Bombay the HQ during that time ?
  • Essentially rephrase and clarify (I know this is an exact quote from [5], but we can do better :) )
  • Modified sentence During 1668–87, the Governors of Bombay, who were also Presidents of Surat Council, spent most of their time in Surat. - Do you have anything better than this?
  • In 1687, the Company shifted: Start new para.
→ Done
  • from Surat to Bombay, which had become the administrative centre of all the west coast settlements. Had become or became ? My reading of the references is that the transfer of the Company HQ is the cause of Bombay becoming the administrative centre.
    • Corrected. If you check the citation [6], it clearly says that Governor John Child attempted to withdraw the HQ from Surat to Bombay, because Bombay had become the administrative centre of all west coast settlements. It doesn't say the HQ was moved then. So, this was the reason for the future shift of holdings of the Company from Surat to Bombay.
  • The Bombay Presidency article says (perhaps from EB 1911) that "In 1687 Bombay was placed at the head of all the Company's possessions in India; but in 1753 the government of Bombay became subordinate to that of Calcutta." It verifiable this is certainly worth mentioning here.
    • Mentioned. It can be verified. [7]
  • Can we find out the start date of John Wyborne's term ?
    • I tried a lot but I can't. There are a few Governors whose exact date cannot be found easily.
    • Thanks for the effort. This is a minor issue and I didn't mean to impose on your time searching for this!
  • Crown Governors
  • Bombay reverted to the British crown : possession of Bombay Presidency reverted ? crown or Crown ?
    • Done
  • Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 ... Bombay reverted to the British crown. India was thereafter directly ruled by the Crown: Clarify timeline. British Raj started in 1858, while Bombay continued to have a Company Governor till 1862.
    • On 2 August 1858, the British Parliament began abolition of the Company and asserted full, direct Crown authority over India. The execution was slow. The Company for purposes of liquidation maintained its formal existence until 1874 - The only reason is liquidation of assets. For Bombay, it may be till 1862. For other territories of India, some other date.
  • There seems to be a 1 year gap between the terms of Michael Knatchbull and Lawrence Lumley. Check.
    • As per [8], there is a 1 year gap
    • I think the source is incorrect. See note below. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Post independence
  • Before independence: Vague. Clarify during what period exactly. If I am reading the description correctly, Sind separated in 1936, which would leave the Presidency with 3 commissionerships at the time of Indian Independence.
    • I have added During the early 20th century. Will it work?
  • Let me think about this. Will edit the paragraph myself if I can think of something better after consulting the references. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have simplified it. I made it 1906. That was the year, when Khandesh was patitioned and East Khandesh and West Khandesh were formed.
  • the northern province Gujarat: Use the northern province of Gujarat, or the northern Province, Gujarat,.
    • Done
  • four commissionerships included: included implies that you are giving a partial listing. Use were instead.
    • Done
  • the northwestern province Sind after 1843 (separated from Bombay Presidency in 1936). use a separate sentence to clarify the comings and goings of Sind.
  • Mentioned it as a seperate sentence.
  • The 26 districts were: I count only 24 districts in the list!
→ I have added the Bombay Island. As per Imperial Gazetteer of India, even Bombay Island was treated as a seperate province. For 24, you may have considered Khandesh as a single entity. The 26 districts include East Khandesh and West Khandesh.
  • After India's independence in 1947: Next para.
→ Done
  • The territory: What territory (since previous sentence refers to both Bombay Presidency and Sind) ? Use The Indian territory, or better still The territory retained by India.
→ Mentioned it as The territory retained by India
  • like Kolhapur (Deccan) and Baroda, Dang (Gujarat) : misplaced and ?
→ Removed
  • which included princely states like Kolhapur (Deccan) and Baroda, Dang (Gujarat) which were : Too many which'es spoil the prose :) Break up into two sentences.
→ Splitted
  • In the 1957 elections, when the State of Bombay was being re-organised along linguistic lines into the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. The sentence suggests that the state of Bombay was being reorganized in the 1957 elections, which is not true. The Congress' suggestion also preceded the elections. (See [9]). Rephrase for clarity.
    • Done. Please have a glance at this In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. In 1956, the States Reorganisation Committee recommended a bi-lingual state for Maharashtra-Gujarat with Bombay as its capital. In the 1957 elections, the Samyukta Maharashtra movement opposed this, and insisted that Bombay be declared the capital of Maharashtra
  • State of Bombay = Bombay State. Avoid unnecessary variation of names and wikilinking both
→ Done
  • The actual Maharashtra-Gujurat split is mentioned only passingly when discussing the proposed (but rejected) autonomous status of Bombay. I think the emphasis should be reversed.
    • Added a lot of details about partiton. Please check it now.
  • In 1960 the designation of the Governor of Bombay changed into Governor of Maharashtra.[citation needed] Is this true or did the position simply become defunct, being replaced by Governor of Maharashtra and Governor of Gujurat ?
→ This may be true as per [10].Anyway, I have modified it.
  • We need to mention how Governor of Bombay was appointed post-independence and what his main functions were (compared with the CM), especially since these were vastly different from the executive functions of Crown Governors who preceded them.
    • Very difficult to find the functions and how they were appointed. Do you have any Source for this?
  • Need a footnote for Sri Prakasa in the table, noting that he served as Governor of Bombay only till 1 May 1960 (?) and was the Governor of Maharashtra thereafter.
→ Added a Note
  • Citations and references
  • What is the difference between references included in the Citation and in the Reference section ?
  • Cunha is included in the Reference section but doesn't seem to be cited inline anywhere.
    • After working for a lot of time on this, Citations and references has been fixed.
  • General
The article is pretty comprehensive and the above issues should be relatively easy to handle. However I think the article needs some greater discussion on the variation in extent of Bombay/Bombay Presidency at different points in time. The lead mentions this but is pretty vague (kept on expanding); there is some greater discussion at Post independence section, but it too doesn't nail down the time-line, and the pre-independence stuff would be better discussed in the corresponding section anyway. Bombay presidency (which seems to be based on EB 1911) and some of the sources you already cite should have useful information on this subject, which should be added.
I have mentioned the details of territorial expansion. Please do have a glance.
Let me know if any of my comment is incorrect or unclear. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some additional comments:
  • Even though google book says that The India List and India Office List was published in 1819, that is impossible, since the book contains information about Bombay Governors upto 1903 ! :) The correct year of publication is 1905 (see front cover).
    • You are right.
  • Some omissions and possible error in Crown Governors:
  • We are missing the post-1903 acting governors (since Raj Bhavan (Maharashtra) source does not list them.). However Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does contain acting Governors along with their month and year of service.
    • I have added all the missing Acting Governors from the Oxford DNB
  • The wikipedia list says that John Ernest Buttery Hotson was an acting governor in 1931, which is right in the middle of Frederick Sykes term of office. What is the source for this, since neither of the above listed sources not the pretty well-developed wikipedia article on John Ernest Buttery Hotson include this claim ?
    • The John Ernest Buttery Hotson article does include this claim. I found that John Ernest Buttery Hotson was the Member of the Executive Council of Bombay (1926-31). When Frederick Sykes had departed for a short period, Hotson took charge of the Post. There are several Good books in the article which source this claim. Even Time seems to support the claim. We have no other option but to beleive.
You are right! The contemporary Time source is compelling evidence; sorry I missed the mention in the John Ernest Buttery Hotson article. The silver lining is that wikipedia will have a more comprehensive list of goversors than Raj Bhavan or ONB themselves! Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Raj Bhavan (Maharashtra) website says that Lord Brabourne's term ended on 18 December 1936. I think this is incorrect. See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which says that he was a governor till (presumably, May) 1937 + several other sources ([11], [12]) that list his tenure as 1933-37.
    • Fixed. Even Reliable Sources like Raj bhavan are sometimes inaccurate
Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
  • 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 located in"
  • "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 years to 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]
    • All Image issues have been resolved. KensplanetTC 14:28, 20 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]
    • 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.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Governors_of_Bombay&oldid=1126718541"