Template:Did you know nominations/Nicco park

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Referencing

Nicco park

(

)

... that Nicco park (pictured) is the first amusement park in the world to have received the SA 8000 (Social Accountability) certificate?

ALT1:... that Nicco park (pictured) is the first and only amusement park in India to have received the SA 8000 (Social Accountability) certificate?
Comment: Started expansion of the article from 23rd May, 2012. Hook text can be found uder the sub section Awards, Certifications and Recognition, wher I've added four different references just to be sure. Also this is my first nomination for DYK, so I'd appreciate it if it was not directly rejected and worked on, if it can be worked on. I'm happy to help. If there is dispute in relevance, I don't mind dropping the picture either.

5x expanded by Debastein (talk), Tb0412 (talk). Nominated by Debastein (talk) at 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article is expanded enough, big enough. All areas are cited. Image is free. However some of the tone of the writing looks promotional, such as "accolades" "crown jewel" "indulge themselves" "well-known European Certifying Authority" (without just stating what they were). Use of "till date" is to be avoided as this statement could be outdated at any moment. It is best to put in a particular date there. I think that the hooks so far a bit boring.Something about this park being the justification of an excuse for a holiday sounds more interesting, or some of the attractions or ride facts would be better. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Neither author has done any editing on Wikipedia this month. As it's been over two weeks since the above review was posted, it seems unlikely this article will be given the necessary edits to address the issues raised with it. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all-above comments. For now, ill take a stab at editing to address issues.Penwatchdog (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Made extensive revisions of every kind except for source-confirmation. anyone having seen the page before will immediately notic a difference. anyone who really paid attention will notice a great difference. unfortunately, as much as i've done, much more attention is needed there, and i'm out of time. i hope my efforts were worthwhile.Penwatchdog (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry, I suddenly became very busy this month as I had to do a lot of traveling. I'm trying to handle all the issues, please tell me if anything specific needs to be taken care of? As for the promotional part, I'm on it. Hook, I'm pretty new at this, so can someone help me here with this? -- Debastein (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP article reads more like a brochure for the park. As i composed and edited, i also noticed most of the references seem to be from the park's own website, which will surely keep it out of DYK (may be kept out for other issues as well without much further attention). i re-composed much mis-placed & repeated text and made the article a better read but i didn't finish the job. good luck with that and i'll check in again when i can. sorry i can't help with the hook... anyone else watching?Penwatchdog (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been on the list for far too long, with problems remaining. The current version of the article still reads like a piece of promotion--in places, it's the tone, in others, the very content (such as the first paragraph of "Reception", which consists of nothing but namedropping sourced to the company website). The paucity of independent references was noted and is still there, with things like this PR piece pretending to be a bit of news coverage. Sorry, but this can't go to the main page in its current state, and since it's been here for a month I don't see where it's going to go. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)