Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Technopark, Kerala

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

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

Technopark, Kerala

Nomination and Strong Support This article, IMHO, looks well written and comprehensive, and is a useful source of information of most types of readers. It has recently been rated as a Selected Article. I have contributed to this article and feel that the article can be looked at for being rated a Featured Article. The discussion during the nomination as a Selected Article can be reviewed [here]. Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 12:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral for now~~ It does need to have a section on its history and beginings.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A section on the History and Mission of Technopark has been added. Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think Ajay has corrected all the possible issues with the article. Definitely support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note, logo needs a fair use rationale. gren グレン 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use rationale has been updated in the Image's summary section. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 13:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please provide Imperial units in bracket for Metric system units. Please provide USD equivalents wherever Indian rupee or Indian units (crore) have been used. Also, citation superscripts has to immediately follow punctuation marks. I noticed two instances where citation superscripts were placed before comma. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instances of citations preceding punctuation marks have been edited. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metric System and USD equivalents have been inserted wherever required.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 16:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support well written article and useful for people interested in India's largest and also one of the fastest growing hi-tech areas --Harig 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose
- Too list-happy (2 sections entirely made of list, one of which of truly dubious necessity)
- I think it's reasonable to expect some text between the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" headers.
- Actually, it probably is too subdivided. "cultures" and "infrastructure" can probably be done without headers at all.
- Also, there are two "Buildings" headers...
- The "Buildings" table may be pretty, but it's ridiculously overcomplicated for what it has to do.
- Image:Thejaswini.jpg is unnecessary fair use per our WP:FUC policy. It should not only be removed, but nominated for deletion.
- Why is it called a "campus"? It's consistently described as an industrial park, not an institution of higher learning.
Circeus 01:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Lead-in text has been added in the Infrastructure section, as suggested.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Culture section was suggested as an addition during the article's previous review. IMHO, it is a worthwhile addition as the cultural activities in Technopark are a significant part of the employees' life there and are also well known, in their own right.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing the section itself.I just think it has too many sub-sections under it. One-paragraph sections are generally considered bad (cf. Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Headers and paragraphs).Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there was some duplication in the "Infrastructure" and "Buildings" sections. the two have now been merged to create a more concise flow of content.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 05:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the table in the Buildings section was earlier in prose and had been migrated to a table after discussion during the article's previous' review for Selected Article status. The parameters used in the table are considered relevant for buildings providing IT/ITES office space and would be useful for serious readers and those conducting high-level research. I hope you will agree to this fact.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 05:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted it myself. Maybe it'll be more obvious what I meant.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, your format seems simpler and more suited to the tone of the article. Thanks for the change. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word Campus can also be used for land in which office buildings are resident, as can be seen in the Wikipedia article on Campus. A notable example is the Microsoft Campus in Redmond, Washington. The term is commonly used in literature pertaining to Technopark, as you can see from some of the cited references.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.I still find it rather confusing, though.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new Thejaswini image, with proper fair use conditions, has been used instead of the previous one.Thank you for pointing it out.--Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice.Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

Unless they are about things that are capitalized, headers should be in sentence case, not title case.
Why "Technopark Club", but "Technopark adventure club"? Do they or do they not capitals? As a formal organization, the adv. club probably shoud be capitalized. It isso on thepage used as a source, anyway. Capitalization in several other places is inconsistent (e.g. "Tech-a-break")

Point taken. I have made the capitalizations as suggested. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could images have captions that are better? "Bhavani building" etc. would already be an improvement, as would identifying the building whose interior is shown. The "carnival" caption is misleading: it's not an actual carnival.

Image captions have been modified, as suggested. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is probably not long enough to warrant inside internal links.

Not been able to spot Internal Links. Will remove if there are any. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In some places, hyphens are used instead of em dashes.

Circeus 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

em dashes have been inserted where required. Thanks to Harryboyles for an AWB edit on the same. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 10:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are way toomany little details that need to be looked at before this can reasonably be called "Wikipedia's best work":

Inappropriate dashes STILL easy as hell to find. Search and replace, people, search and replace

Non mandatory dashes were removed. -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

capitals STILL used inconsistently (satellite Earth vs. satellite earth, to cite one example)
- also, it starts by calling the city by it's long name, but then uses "Trivandrum." Choose one and stick to it.

The anglicized name will be used across the article since Technopark's own brand-name mentions it. This version is also better recognised outside India. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "Government," "State," and various similar nouns should probably not be capitalized at all.

The capitalization of these type of nouns is consistent with their usage in related literature and highlights the importance of these entities. I believe the same style can be retained, as they are not just generic nouns. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 09:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the "Park" references should be dropped, or it should be mentioned PRIOR to using the ter that it is a common informal name for it.

"The Park" references have been dropped and "Technopark" is now used uniformly for all references. -- Ajaypp 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing could still be slickened. See this copyedit
Numerous unnecessary multiple links have to be hunted down

The multiple links in the articles are now removed. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source could be made far, far more readable by deleting the unnecessary long references name (no reference is used more than one, so they are useless.) and unused variables in cite templates.

Source readability has been improved by removing unused variables in site templates and modifying reference names wherever possible. -- Ajaypp 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

& for "and"??? This alone would be enough to flunk the article.

"&" is used in the names of companies, where it has been customarily used. This includes in their logos. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 09:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you ask the Copyediting league to have a good look at it. I know how hard it's to copyedit an article you've had under your nose for weeks or months. If it wasn't for all of these things, I would probably support the article. Circeus 17:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong SUPPORT :- The article provides comprehensive information about the Park. The socio-economic impact section is included, which can supply enough info about the economic impact in the society. No edit wars has been reported and the article fits in to WP:NPOV. The article now clearly possess the standards listed out in WP:WIAFA, and hence can be selected as a Featured article. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 06:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support- The article does quite good coverage of a unique subject. Definitely well written and notable. Should be featured--Kathanar 18:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Informative and well organized article-- Sathyalal Talk to Sathya 08:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- Well written; comprehensive; zero errors. I support this article to be included in the elited category of Featured Article Status. --Samaleks 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks good, but please run through and fix all the dashes and hyphens per WP:DASH. There are some hyphens that should be em-dashes, and some em-dashes that are surrounded by spaces. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphens have been replaced with en-dashes and em-dashes wherever relevant, with reference to Dash (punctuation). Thank you for pointing out the changes. --Ajaypp ^{(I am here..)} 05:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are wrong, and there are a number of hyphenated words that don't make sense. I fixed some, but there are still many. Please have a copyeditor look at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit for proper dash usage is underway. Please check after a while (one day, maybe). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have done a quick copyedit for addressing the dash issues. I request the main author to check if all the instances of dash (or hyphen) uses have been covered. If I have missed something, please follow the WP:DASH guidelines to fix. Added one citation needed tag. Please address that. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong support. Great article

sumal 14:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.