The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Raul654 19:05, 11 March 2011 [1].

Technopark, Kerala[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Technopark, Kerala

Featured article review/Technopark, Kerala/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: List WikiProjects

Article is lacking in sources in places, and has a lot of sources to involved parties, especially with self-sourcing of pov material, peacock words about how great the place is, etc YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please throw light on specific details rather than generalised statements. For instance, please point out the peacock statements or unsourced claims. This will help other editors to correct it, if needed. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may answer for YM - there are already several places where statements are tagged as needing references or needing more specificity. Formatting needs some work - for example the bolding in the Institutions section is unneeded. Bullet point lists are discouraged, especially where the information could easily be presented as prose, as in the Phase II section. Statements that include statistics, such as the second paragraph of the Phase III section, need references. Also, short paragraphs (one to two senetences) should be combined or expanded where possible. Statements such as "This provides a range of attractive economic benefits to the companies operating within Technopark" in the Special Economic Zones section are peacock-y and need to be referenced to reliable non-self published sources. There are three dead links that need to be fixed. Don't use contractions, such as in "employees don't have to travel" in the Technopark Adventure Club section. Has anything special happened in the last couple of years? The last specific date I see mentioned in the text is 2007. These are just the things I spotted in a quick skim of the article - I didn't thoroughly check prose, reference reliability or images, so there is most likely more work that needs to be done on these as well. Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Noted. Working on the pointed issues. Will soon update. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 11:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the non-cited claims and added citations where necessary. Removed the bolding of institutions and provided internal links. Still working on the article; please bear with the delay, as I am busy these days with other works. Cheers, -- Aarem ^(Talk) 11:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an update as to how this is going? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include sourcing, prose, MOS and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - many of the issues I mentioned above still exist, and prevent this article from retaining FA status at this time. Dana boomer (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Concerns above not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 07:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.