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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:24, 20 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]

Private traffic is limited by the number of Certificate of Entitlement issued by Land Transport Authority monthly. And that's another story altogether, because some families do switch to private cars when the COE market goes low enough for them to afford it. Public transport is not used by the population just because it's more convenient, but also because they have little alternative as private transportation in Singapore is much more expensive. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Injury rates, yes I have the data. The LTA sets the standard of no more than 0.4 injuries per 1,000,000 customers. Between 1996-2000, this number has not even exceeded 0.18 for SMRT, and I believe it still has not for either companies. If this standard is breached, we'll probably have noticed because it will be on the frontpage papers (It happened to taxi operators), including a hefty fine. If you doubt my information, I can scan the brochure. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 20 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 in Singapore enforces the rule of law and the way they do things to archieve their aims.--Huaiwei 12:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to most standard English dictionaries, or the Wiktionary. "Ensure" indicates an intent to make certain; e.g., the US wants to ensure that hijackers do not take over passenger aircraft and fly them into tall buildings. The article itself says that's not the intent of the Singapore authorities, who have rejected the idea of "installation of platform screen doors" in various locations, in part because of "concerns of high installation costs." The reference cited in the article on this point is pretty explicit, saying that the authority rejects the installation of "excessive safety features" that aren't seen as cost-effective. It also says that the official intent is to "enhance" safety, not "ensure" it. Monicasdude 16:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that to ensure indicates the intent to make certain. But again, does it indicate that the results will be certain? Show me which dictionary indicates as such. Saying the authorities are "half-hearted" about safety issues simply based on their judgement that platform screendoors are not installed seems to display too simple a level of assumption here. They do not have to spend millions of taxpayer's money just to "demonstrate" their commitment to safety, an effort which is likely to come under scrutinity and criticism by the general public. Other factors such as economics and politics has a part to play, so do we dismiss intention because external factors are restricting the extend to which they can realise their desired results?--Huaiwei 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did not install the PSDs, but the authorities have decided to enforce a S$500 on-the-spot fine for anyone stepping beyond the yellow line. Tell me how is that a "promotion", and not an enforcement (to ensure safety). - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked at peer review, no feedback. When it comes to FAC, a big dispute comes up. This is what I get in return after spending 1 month and many trips to the library to rework on this article. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is pretty normal for most articles. People seem to pay more attention to FACs.--Huaiwei 02:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I take that back my words. I apologise. I was frustrated that my Internet connection blew in my face many times last night. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem that's frustrating you is that peer review is often not a very effective process, and attracts mostly editors who already have an interest in the subject -- who, for the most part, have already contributed to the article. FAC brings in editors with an outside perspective. I think the article is improving. I've done a copyedit to the safety and security sections, trying to make the language clearer and more direct. The article still needs a runthrough to remove the kind of sentence I mentioned in my initial comment, and insert whatever content is important into the remaining text; I don't know enough about the the subject to be sure I'm doing that accurately. And I've changed "ensure" to "enhance," since that's the term the system operators use, and its accuracy can't really be argued. Monicasdude 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which then leads me to wonder if you are attempting to push in edits while lacking contextual knowledge in the topic under debate. Your recent attempts to revert my restorations of some of your edits proofs this point [1]. If you admit you lack some knowledge, then at least discuss it here when you notice someone else half-reverting what you edited. None of us are apparantly convinved that enhance should be given preference over ensure. The Platform screen doors prevent unauthorised access, and not limit them. Do you have sources to show anyone ever breaching this unlawfully? Finally, why remove an entire line, which is contextually important and further supported by referencing?--Huaiwei 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You really should review Wikipedia policies on civility, personal attacks, and ownership of articles. On two specific points: with regard to sourcing, if you want the article to claim that the platform doors are 100% successful, you need to support the point with sources. It's not the responsibility of someone who doubts an unsourced factual claim to prove it wrong. You need to provide a verifiable, factual source. With regard to "enhance" v. "ensure," I've inserted the term the relevant authority uses to describe its intent, in the reference cited in the article. There is a difference between the two terms: the text I propose is verified by the reference; the text you prefer is not. Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy that cannot be overridden by a consensus of editors on a particular article. Monicasdude 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For fares issue, yes they are put in comparison, the initial fares of 1987 are shown at the magnetic farecard section, and the current ones under Ez-link. - Mailer Diablo 05:36, 20 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]

Support. Impressed with the artwork for that artist representation of the train network. --Raichu29125 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copy-edited the whole article, phew ... Three points: (1) Please address my inline queries; (2) Check the n dashes I inserted for 'North–South' line and others (I left North East alone, assuming it's not 'north to east'. (3) Can we have some more info on the driverless trains, please? It's the only interesting point in the article, and might be a forerunner to many future constructions around the world this century. How has the public reacted? Were there initial objections? Tony 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not so sure if the n dashes are really neccesary, considering they are not used in official publications of rail line names [2]. As for details on the driverless system, it may be better for these detail to be in the North East MRT Line article instead without overflowing this article with too much specific detail relevant only to one particular line at present.--Huaiwei 03:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I've addressed your inline queries as well. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Better remove the n dashes, then. I still think just a couple of sentences on driverless trains would lift it, even if the issue is covered in a daughter article; it's such a radical move. Tony 05:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty will see what we can do...--Huaiwei 05:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Enviably good. ;-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A beautiful article, particularly comprehensive in terms of pictures and information. Ronline ✉ 07:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very well done, except the images seem to be too big and have little to do with the sections in which they are placed. I would like to see the images cleaned up and the sections expanded somewhat. User:PZFUN/signature 08:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Which sections? -- Natalinasmpf 09:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And which photos? (BTW proper image copyright info is a requirement, but not photos themselves) I believe that the size of the sections are around right size - Expanded/additional information may be found at its respective sub-articles. Unless you want the article to bloat around 50k, like London Underground. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current image sizes are done such that the layout of text and images fit nicely in terms of presentation. Shrink them, and the text appears to overwelm it.--Huaiwei 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work.Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC!

My Rfa

Support. Nice article, well structured, very informative, well referenced. Beautiful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 :::I think the problem that's frustrating you is that peer review is often not a very effective process, and attracts mostly editors who already have an interest in the subject -- who, for the most part, have already contributed to the article. FAC brings in editors with an outside perspective. I think the article is improving. I've done a copyedit to the safety and security sections, trying to make the language clearer and more direct.  The article still needs a runthrough to remove the kind of sentence I mentioned in my initial comment, and insert whatever content is important into the remaining text; I don't know enough about the the subject to be sure I'm doing that accurately. And I've changed "ensure" to "enhance," since that's the term the system operators use, and its accuracy can't really be argued. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 15:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 ::::Which then leads me to wonder if you are attempting to push in edits while lacking contextual knowledge in the topic under debate. Your recent attempts to revert my restorations of some of your edits proofs this point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Rapid_Transit_%28Singapore%29&diff=32105271&oldid=32105102]. If you admit you lack some knowledge, then at least discuss it here when you notice someone else half-reverting what you edited. None of us are apparantly convinved that ''enhance'' should be given preference over ''ensure''. The Platform screen doors ''prevent'' unauthorised access, and not ''limit'' them. Do you have sources to show anyone ever breaching this unlawfully? Finally, why remove an entire line, which is contextually important and further supported by referencing?--[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
+:::::You really should review Wikipedia policies on civility, personal attacks, and ownership of articles. On two specific points: with regard to sourcing, if you want the article to claim that the platform doors are 100% successful, you need to support the point with sources. It's not the responsibility of someone who doubts an unsourced factual claim to prove it wrong. You need to provide a verifiable, factual source. With regard to "enhance" v. "ensure," I've inserted the term the relevant authority uses to describe its intent, in the reference cited in the article.  There is a difference between the two terms: the text I propose is verified by the reference; the text you prefer is not. Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy that cannot be overridden by a consensus of editors on a particular article. [[User:Monicasdude|Monicasdude]] 15:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 :* For fares issue, yes they are put in comparison, the initial fares of 1987 are shown at the magnetic farecard section, and the current ones under Ez-link. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 05:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)