Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:23, 19 December 2005

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)

Semi-self nomination. Took Singapore Wikipedians a month to summarise and cleanup the article to its current form. Compare with before version Peer review suggests no significiant ideas/changes, so I think it should be ready by now. This is the first Singapore-related article going up for Featured Article Candidate. - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support, must admit it's a semi-self nom for me to vote too, but it's been a long way and I think it is up to standard. -- Natalinasmpf 04:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Good article. I haven't read the whole of it in detail, but overall, through the titles, pictures, and some portions I read, it looks comprehensive. Great visual impact, and I noticed that everything is properly referenced. Can't see any reasons why it shouldn't be featured. deeptrivia (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support, haven't delved into it yet but looks good. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 04:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Needs a good copy-edit. Overlinked (see WP's policy on trivial chronological links and common noun links, and the following pages Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous. Please use lower case for headings consistently. Tony 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

De-linked sections, date now consistent. ~~Are you sure there is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous? I cannot find it.~~ For headings, only names that are not in lower case are official names given by the authorities, including the Standard Ticket. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/archive28#Dates_linking_convention_currently_ludicrous is not official policy. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's right—I wrote "see WP's policy on trivial chronological links and common noun links, and the following pages". The linking problem has been fixed: well done! I'll have a look at the prose later—it needs work. Tony 09:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support of course! Great job done. Article deserves what it really deserves. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. I agree with the need for a thorough copyedit, with particular attention to lengthy sentences which really have next to no content, like this one: "Numerous measures have been taken by operators and authorities to ensure the safety of passengers travelling on the system." ("passengers travelling on the system" should just be "passengers"; and the sentence would be better in the form "X" and "Y" are among the measures taken by "Z" to promote passenger safety. Note that I write "promote" rather than "ensure"; there's a subtle POV/verifiability problem with asserting that such measures are wholly successful.) I don't understand the point of mentioning the original fares, without any reference to subsequent changes. Finally, the article misses one essential matter, which should be mentioned both in the introduction and the body: what share/percentage of commuters use the mass transit system, and is that share increasing or decreasing? Monicasdude 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is this, complete with citation: As of 2004, the daily ridership on the MRT and LRT networks hovers at about 1.3 million per day — a figure which pales in comparison to the 2.8 million daily ridership on the bus network.[2] The gap is narrowing as the rail network expands, and bus services are often withdrawn or amended to avoid duplication of services. As for the body, perhaps it could be emphasised more, in terms of usage across each section. I will think about it. The word "ensure" is used at the safety section of the MTR, by the way. -- Natalinasmpf 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless every commuter/passenger travels by rail or bus, that doesn't meet my objection. "Ensure" is the wrong word in the other article, too, for the same reason. Monicasdude 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nearly every commuter travels by rail or bus (although they overlap)...there are taxis, although I am not sure whether that falls under this category. I have changed "ensure" to "in an effort to ensure", which means they are trying and want to ensure, but doesn't necessarily mean that it is ensured. Is that better? -- Natalinasmpf 02:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts that ever commuter in Singapore travels by rail or bus, but this may be a terminology problem. Are you really saying that private automobile traffic is negligible? The "Expressways of Singapore" article indicates that this isn't at all the case, and one of the related articles mentions that Singapore's public transit systems were expanded because of (anticipated?) traffic congestion.

As for "ensure," I think "promote" is the more accurate word, though your revision isn't far off. "Ensure" implies a goal of 100% safety, and if pressed I expect the people running the system would admit that you can't achieve perfect safety, and that there are very small risks that are tolerated, because the cost of eliminating them is excessive. (And there's nothing wrong with that, either; if I had, hypothetically, $1 billion to spend on public health and safety, spending the money to reduce an already very low accident rate in public transit wouldn't be my first choice. . . . Hmmm, the article talks about safety, but doesn't report the accident or injury rates. A conspicuous omission, unless it's one of those subjects that isn't talked about under local law. Monicasdude 02:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is nearly impossible to obtain accurate figures for private traffic (for the entire aspect of being private), but from one of the sources (I think it was mentioned in public transport in Singapore, I will go take a look), from a straw poll of Singaporean students, only 14% of students walk to their school. I thought you meant "commuter" by "users of public transport". For accident rates, I suspect the accidents mentioned are the only accidents that ever occurred, although electrical faults in the system (that causes trains to stall) are numerable but they affect convenience, not safety. I'm not sure exactly what is needed. People do commit suicide by throwing themselves into the tracks of Bishan MRT Station often, but I'm not sure this counts as an "accident" either. The fact that over half the population takes the bus is daunting in itself. I will go dig for more figures, if those exist. -- Natalinasmpf 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, please see Ref 4. In Singapore, the authorities mean business when it comes to ensuring safety, and are more than willing to imprison you for endangering the lives of others if "promoting" doesn't work. There are really such cases before. See Laws of Singapore. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure something does not neccesarily reflect or imply successful implimentation subsequently. Compared to "promote", it can be interpreted as being more pro-active, which perhaps better reflects the way the authorities enforces the rule of law and the way they do things to archieve their aims.--Huaiwei 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article has improved considerably, and is well-researched. --Vsion 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Looks Great. It's well organized, well written, and comprehensive. Also its pictures are layed out in an organized fashion. Many FAs have thier pictures layed out in a messy fashion. I think picture layout should be part of the criteria. Recently I have been organizing picturers on pages. Tobyk777 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Excellent organisation and content, can't see any problems with the prose. Definitely a worthy featured article. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It has been a long time since the push to improve this article through collaborative effort first stated, and it shows. Almost every section were checked and double checked, added, expanded, summarised, and than proof-edited, sometimes more than once. I cant really find any more issues with it except for small grouses like some pictures appearing underexposed! :D--Huaiwei 12:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All the reasons I can think off has been listed above. --Cmyk 12:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 ::::: It is nearly impossible to obtain accurate figures for private traffic (for the entire aspect of being private), but from one of the sources (I think it was mentioned in [[public transport in Singapore]], I will go take a look), from a straw poll of Singaporean students, only 14% of students walk to their school. I thought you meant "commuter" by "users of public transport". For accident rates, I suspect the accidents mentioned are the only accidents that ever occurred, although electrical faults in the system (that causes trains to stall) are numerable but they affect convenience, not safety. I'm not sure exactly what is needed. People do commit [[suicide]] by throwing themselves into the tracks of [[Bishan MRT Station]] often, but I'm not sure this counts as an "accident" either. The fact that over half the population takes the bus is daunting in itself. I will go dig for more figures, if those exist. -- [[User:Natalinasmpf|Natalinasmpf]] 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 :* Dude, please see Ref 4. In Singapore, the authorities mean business when it comes to ensuring safety, and are more than willing to [[imprison]] you for endangering the lives of others if "promoting" doesn't work. There are really such cases before. See [[Laws of Singapore]]. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
+:* To ''ensure'' something does not neccesarily reflect or imply successful implimentation subsequently. Compared to "promote", it can be interpreted as being more pro-active, which perhaps better reflects the way the authorities enforces the rule of law and the way they do things to archieve their aims.--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Support'''. The article has improved considerably, and is well-researched. --[[User:Vsion|Vsion]] 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Support''' Looks Great.  It's well organized, well written, and comprehensive.  Also its pictures are layed out in an organized fashion.  Many FAs have thier pictures layed out in a messy fashion.  I think picture layout should be part of the criteria.  Recently I have been organizing picturers on pages.  [[User:Tobyk777|Tobyk777]] 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)