Wikipedia:Featured article review/MTR/archive1

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

The article was kept 07:55, 5 April 2007.

MTR

Review commentary

Messages left at Piotrus, Trains, Rapid transit, Hong Kong and China. LuciferMorgan 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to see another FA on rapid transit go, but this article has some serious problems. It has a huge "Miscellaneous" section, which violates WP:TRIVIA, the TOC is crowded, some headers don't follow WP:MSH, and the line names are colored (which is a bit odd). — Selmo ^(talk) 02:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article does need structural work; the "Miscellaneous" section is badly named (though it doesn't violate trivia), multitude of stubby headings, one/two sentence paragraphs, image farm...overall the layout is incoherent, and needs an overhaul. I haven't read it fully yet, but first impression is that half an hour spent merging paras and sections would make it an easier read and greatly improve presentation. Ceoil 23:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the Miscellaneous section has been taken care of[1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no miscellaneous section whilst the article was promoted to FA. It should not have been created, either. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
1. Please be selective on images that give additional encyclopaedic information. It will be difficult for readers with poor internet connection to load all of those images. By the way, there is already {{commonscat}} to point to image gallery at Commons, so need to repeat gallery here.
2. I believe the prose needs to be tightened. As for a user who wants to read MTR as an encyclopaedia not as a traveller, I found it hard to grasp the essential information. The last part of the article has many brochure-like statements. For instance, the Fare & tickets section is unecessary, I think. There is no need to inform uptodate fare system, unless this is wikitravel article.

— Indon (reply) — 17:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The number of pictures is significantly reduced. — HenryLi (Talk) 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if I agree that the Fare and tickets section is unnecessary. It's kind of essential information about a particular mode of public transport like this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did some clean-up of the intro paragraph and the "Initial proposal" paragraph. Some copy editing to make it an easier read, fixing grammar problems, getting rid of repeated wikilinks, stuff like that. More to follow when time allows. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have renamed "MTR Rolling Stock" into "Rolling Stock"; people know you're talking about MTR's rolling stock not others'. Also, I consider the section "Art promotion" irrelevant, and would wish to discuss for removal of that section (and make it as a "see also link". --Raphaelmak 16:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the existence of that section is going to hinder this FAR, I'd suggest we put that off till later. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Inconsistent date formatting throughout the article; some use yyyy-mm-dd, other use Month day, year. All numbers and units of measurement need a non-breaking hard space between them; some have, some don't. Problems throughout with hyphens and dashes; pls review WP:DASH. Prose problems; the article will need a copyedit. "It is interesting to note" is not encyclopedic, and redundant. Footnotes need work; many are not completed (to include publisher, date and author when available, as well as last access date) in a consistent biblio format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. I've fixed the footnote formats to make sure they're all of the same format and provided dates where available.
- 2. The only place I noticed inconsistent date formatting was in the footnotes, which I've fixed. If they appear anywhere else, please point them out.
- 3. I got rid of the "It is interesting to note" line.
- 4. I did not notice where there was not a space between numbers and units of measurements. Can you point them out?
- 5. I've fixed two places where I thought the hyphen was incorrectly used.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 2 and 4 and 5, these problems are throughout; I'm not sure how you can miss them. Early in the article, and in several places, we find the date "On 1967-09-01, the ..." while later in the article, dates are given as Month Day, Year (which is preferable in prose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see the problems you mentioned with the date format. What I see is that for those dates that have all three of year, month, and day, they are wikilinked per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) such that it appears in the format dictated by a reader's personal preference. For those dates that do not have a day, but just month and year, they appear as, for example, "September 1997". I don't see where there are any dates with the "Month Day, Year" format. Can you point them out? I also don't see any other problems with the units of measure and dashes. Maybe I'm just missing them. It would help if you can point out where you see them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The various date formats are compliant to the manual. They would be automatically translated to the date format in user's preference. I have changed to the units in preferred format. — HenryLi (Talk) 08:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of the work needed on separating numbers and units of measurment with a non-breaking hard space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I fixed a few more.[2]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date consistency fixed. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy. I'm afriad you made a mistake here.

In the manual, "Put a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Preferably, use   for the space (25 kg) so that it does not break lines."

It is the unit symbol, not the unit itself. "25 kilograms" without " " is perfectly acceptable. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the sections of the article and its headers has been shifted around and modified significantly; this should not be the case and needs to be reverted, if nessecary - It is the main cause of concern that is raised by this FAR. Lines with colours should only be in the network section. - Mailer Diablo 14:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The section restructuring seemed to have improved upon the version that was promoted to FA status 2 years ago. The smaller subsections in the "History" section were combined, and the "Privatisation" section was made a subsection of the "History" section. A new "Infrastructure" section had been created and appropriate sections were made subsections of that, including the "Network" section, the "Depots" section, and the "Station facilities, amenities and services" (which has also since been expanded upon). The "Fares and tickets" section largely remained unchanged except that a subsection for the fares for the Airport line had been combined into the "Other fares" subsection. The "Future expansion" section had been updated and small subsections were eliminated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs)
- But I don't see where the article is using coloured lines except in the network section. Can you point out this problem? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When is a TOC considered "crowded" and "not crowded"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Third-level headings eliminated (Condensed to Station facilities, amenities and services). 2c should be addressed at this point. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are TOC (2c), and trivia (4). Marskell 17:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is the last sentence of "MTR HONG KONG Race Walking" cited 5 times? That's a little excessive, though if it's for the whole paragraph then it's best to put them at the end of the sentences in question. LuciferMorgan 17:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources now reordered. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any further or unsolved concerns? If not, keep featured as I presume the concerns have been addressed. The trivia section has disappeared since nomination of this review. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It sppears that the renaming issue has remained unresolved despite supposed "concensus", if one were to judge purely on vote counts. The current name of the article continue to circumvent our naming convention policy, and I dont think this is acceptable for an FA.--Huaiwei 12:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would consider the issue opposed, or at the very least, no consensus. WP is not a democracy, but for the second time since January, an informal poll has not achieved consensus on the move. Neither one could even achieve majority support. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inherent problems with the skewed demographies of voters has been highlighted, irregardless of the voting results, and hence cannot be considered to be true concensus, especially when this is a question of global notability. Even at this stage, there has been no successful demonstration of such notability, despite the votes beind stacked heavily to one viewpoint. Clearly, the issue is far from being adequately addressed, and I would think this can have an impact on its FA status.--Huaiwei 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I never said there was such a thing as "true consensus" on the move. In fact, I believe I said there was no consensus to move. Plus, there is no current move request listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        My views on the general situation need not be a reflection of your words. Perhaps you may wish to expend more effort to actually research on the case in hand, instead of nit-picking on procedures and other issues.--Huaiwei 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And if you wish to dwell on procedures, may I remind that a formal RM is not prerequisite for a request to check on facts or notability.--Huaiwei 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep — there are still some minor ToC issues; the community heading can probably be compressed into one heading of three paragraphs in lieu of two headings. The article is a little on the long side in terms of prose; this is just a minor issue, but a subarticle for the history might help reduce the ToC and the overall length. The prose could also stand for a quick copy-edit, although I don't have specific examples at this time. — Deckill er 03:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to re-read the article, but the structure looks sound now, and I feel confident it's good to go if Deckiller has read through it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 3 April 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.