Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MTR

MTR

Why am I nominating this? Usually I am against granting FA status to short articles, I like long leads and written references. Here, however, is a great example of a good article without any of the qualities I usually prefer: it is short, it has only one paragraph-long lead and only online references. But all those things are withing the FA guidelines, and I find the article quite comprehensive. And I just love the color text :) Comments? Oh, note that this a relisting of a failed December nomination, now much improved. Old nomination discussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MTR (old nomination) and I believe all old objections have been adressed in the new article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Everyking 02:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Mailer Diablo 07:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Minor objection. "Currently, there are two different fare classes on the MTR" This can be outdated far too soon. I'd like to see an As of January 2005-link (with the date when the current fares were looked up, so the used date is more clear to the readers. Also, I don't think that the names of the lines need to be colored with every mention. First mention and the legend next to the chart should be enough. Otherwise, a fine article which I'm happy to support if tweaked. It's grown loads since the last nom. Support Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Object. It seems to me that there are significant holes in the article in regards to funding and administration. Granted, public finance is my profession so maybe these are obscure and not of general interest, but anyways... questions I'd like to see answered include:
  • How much did the original system and extensions cost to construct?
    • HK$5.7 billion. Have added some figures. --JuntungWu 10:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Were they paid for with government funds (perhaps bonds?) or some sort of public-private partnership?
  • Do MTR's fares and other revenues cover the cost of operations, or is there some sort of government subsidy?
  • How has (partial) privatization affected operations and/or fares?
  • Was there controversy surrounding the public offering (one might expect something, since government owned entities exist to provide service at cost, while most private entities exist to make a profit)?
  • The lead section calls the system affordable. This needs justification >-- ideally a calculation of the ratio of average resident income to average ticket cost, and a comparison to the same ratio for other major public transit train systems around the world (perhaps Paris' Metro, NYC subway, Mexico City subway) and alternative modes of transportation (e.g. taxi fare across the city).

While much of this may be more appropriate for the MTR corporation article, I believe each of my questions merits at least brief mention in the nominated article. In short, I think the article as it stands looks only at the "front end" of the MTR - physical description, history of physical description, fares, and payment systems. It is missing a discussion of the entire "back end", which is neither adequately covered in the MTR corporation article, nor even alluded to in the nominated article. Bantman 17:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Much good information has been added, but is still lacking in some areas. I suppose I could live with supporting it even with its remaining gaps, but only after a good copyedit (a reorganization of the info in the history section wouldn't hurt either). Bantman 02:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

This article has improved greatly since it was nominated; I will now support it. Bantman 23:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Support featuring this article. We need more featured articles that aren't about the USA. would like to see some of Bantman's suggested improvements added as well. Pedant 02:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Support. All the colors in the text are a bit "busy", but it seems rather complete, well laid out, and balanced without being too long. Vaoverland 20:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support. In the best spirit of non-US solidarity (teehee!), and in the pious hopes that one day our TTC will be similarly honoured. Hooray for the Bloor line! Long live the Spadina streetcar! QuartierLatin1968 01:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. I'll get cracking and upload all of my MTR pictures tonight and clean up the history section and IPO stuff. --JuntungWu 09:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Aside: This is your idea of a short article?--ZayZayEM 12:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • It was short at the time of the FAC listing. Not anymore now, but still it's FA quality!! ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Strong support. Very well written, would make a great FAC. Páll 18:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support, great article --Spangineer ∞ 19:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Support, with a little dubiety: the article is very good right now (checking again: yes, still good), but it sure is in flux. I came here yesterday to post an Object screed about choppy prose, excessive length, intimidating TOC, and committee-written Lead, but was prevented from saving by the horribleness of the servers. This morning I find all those never-posted objections taken care of, just as if PFZUN and Bantman read my mind, so support. (Checking again, yes, article still good, phew, now hurry up and save comment.)--Bishonen | Talk 07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh... I agree... I ended up making a bunch of copyedits myself when the support momentum seemed to be rising to a consensus, despite the article's shortcomings. Really all these changes should have been made on peer review. I would have whined that it should have been posted there first, but (surprise!) it was, receiving no comments. And I flew right by it, commenting on other articles... peer review is just too long a list for people to read each article on it. Nonetheless, articles headed to FAC need substantive peer review before they are ready for a real vote. People pay attention here because it's the last step before the front page; really, more attention paid to PR articles would make all the articles that show up here better, and prevent major editing (like what happened here) from occuring during candidacy. I think that would be A Good Thing. The solution? Perhaps categorizing Peer Review so that articles whose next stop is FAC are separated out somehow from the rest, and could receive more attention from those interested in FAs. Bantman 19:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and since you raised the subject, here an inappropriate puff arising from desperation: someone please help with Shakespeare's reputation which has been sitting on Peer review like patience on a monument since forever!--Bishonen | Talk 07:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I would like those links in different colours through the main text to be changed to a normal colour (not the first ones next to the map, the other ones wikilinking to the lines), however that's a minor quibble. I fixed up the references, I enthusiastically support this article! Great work :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support -- Very pleased to support this article. It's well done and the pictures accompanying it just really add that extra touch of excellence. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• This article has been posted on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2005. Do you agree with this action? 202.75.80.8 06:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer 24 January, as its my birthday! Páll 06:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed to be Raul654's job? I think there are many very good reasons to leave it in his capable hands. It will be placed on the calendar in due time, no need to rush it. Bantman 06:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)