Talk:Majuli

Majuli was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 25, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

India: Assam / Geography Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Assam (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Not the biggest[edit]

For some reason a myth has arised that Majuli is the "biggest river island in the world". Not even close, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraj%C3%B3

has an area 40 times bigger than Majuli, and here is another one 20 times larger in area:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananal_Island

Moreover, Majuli is not completely surrounded by water, with a land border to its north, unlike the Bananal Island which is entirely surrounded by a river.

Also see the list of some known river islands here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_island

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.94.187.132 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for size?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion over the size of the island; previous versions, most recent edit and external websites all have different opinions as to its size and ordinal ranking among river islands. Can someone please find an authoritative source for the size and cite it? Demi ^T/_C 16:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bananal Island, in Brazil, is larger than Majuli. Marajó Island, also in Brazil, is larger than Majuli as well, but it is a mixed fluvial and ocean island - even though it's wikipedia article calls it a fluvial island. Marajó being considered a fluvial island, then the two largest are Marajó and Bananal. I don't know if Majuli would be the next largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.180.144 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I searched Majuli landscape website and found it is an area of 580,000 sq km. including Majuli and neighbouring districts. Actually, One may notice the land in Google map is connected with Lakhimpur district on the northern bank of Brahmaputra. The fact is many course of rivulets Map make a river island from both sides. The island is historically connected with Jorhat district of southern bank of Brahmaputra and the main transportation is ferry service to the island. In Sept. 2016 Majuli declared as district.
P@rik$hit 07:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Googlemaps view differs from the map in the article[edit]

If you search Google maps, Majuli appears not to be an island. Could someone with more knowledge please do some deeper research? Grandma Roses (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to the website given above.
P@rik$hit 07:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Majuli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170501122301/http://assamlog.com/ to http://www.assamlog.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.india-today.com/itoday/majuli.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majuli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110819031330/http://jorhat.nic.in/dmp11-12.pdf to http://jorhat.nic.in/dmp11-12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a section on the physical geography[edit]

Which should expand on the small amount in the lead which does not appear to be mentioned in the main part of the article. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Quickfail for being far enough away from passing 1a and 1b requirements. Major copyediting is likely needed for some parts. Johnson524 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Majuli/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dcotos: I'm excited to review this article within the coming days. Cheers! Johnson524 07:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is pretty broad in its coverage, but has enough issues I believe a quickfail is valid.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Below I have gone in depth on the key issues for the first two sections, and more broadly for the sections following, as the issues presented here seem to continue on in the later sections without improvement.

Lede[edit]

There really shouldn't be citations in the lede section if these facts are uncontroversial and are repeated later in the article (see MOS:LEADCITE)
In the second sentence, India should not have a wikilink as it is a widely known country (see MOS:OVERLINK)
While I enjoy seeing the conversion templates used for detailing the shrinking of the island, the statistics really would work better in the body of the article as opposed to the lede, which in general should be used to summarize key points made throughout the article, and not go into specifics on a few. (see MOS:LEAD)
In line with my last comments about summarizing key points of the article, any mention of the Ecology, Economy, and Politics sections (comprising most of the article) are absent from the lede, and should be added

History[edit]

In the first sentence: "piece of land ," has an extraneous space, though I feel removing the comma altogether would be better
The third sentence is awkward and should be combined with the second sentence
The second sentence of the second paragraph is unclear
The last sentence of the second paragraph should have a period
For the third paragraph, are there any wikilinks that can be added to make the sentence clearer
In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph, fix the broken "Mising languages" wikilink by writing as "Mising languages"
In the final sentence, there is a double period at the end

Culture and demography[edit]

In the last sentence of the first paragraph, "km" should be written out as kilometer
It is unclear what the second paragraph of this section has to do with population

I am going to stop my in-depth review here, as there are already enough issues I believe to make this review a quickfail, but to touch base on a few more issues in some of the other sections:

The unrelated image of wetlands in the education subsection breaks up the formatting of the bullet points are should be removed
It is unclear what some of the bullet points in the Tourism subsection mean, and a few of them are quite un-neutral in their wording. Not required, but I also think that the bullet points could be condensed into a sentence or two instead of a list.
There is an abundance of photos on the right side of the article. This isn't necessarily bad, but there is also a photo gallery section at the end of the article, including even more photos. One of these should be removed.

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
See above comments about the lede
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Mostly OK, but words like "mighty" in the second sentence of the History section, "grand event" in the first sentence of the festivals subsection, and the entire caption for the one of the images reading "Majuli – A paradise for bird watchers" should be rephrased or removed
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I'm sorry your review failed, but I wish you the best in improving this and hopefully other articles on Wikipedia. Cheers! Johnson524 18:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.