Talk:Chipknip

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chipknip article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chipknip was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 27, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Numismatics Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-06. The result of the discussion was keep.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chipknip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021051247/http://www.currence.nl/site/site/website/data/00033/Jaarcijfers%20Chipknip%20-%20aantal%20betaaltransacties%202006.2.pdf to http://www.currence.nl/site/site/website/data/00033/Jaarcijfers%20Chipknip%20-%20aantal%20betaaltransacties%202006.2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chipknip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is close to polished enough for a Good Article nomination. It has serious issues with WP:GACR #1a (prose quality) and #3b, among others.

The lead already displays significant inconsistencies in tense (GACR 1a): The first paragraph starts in past tense ("Chipknip was") and then switches to present ("The money needs"). The claim that "Chipknip was taken over by Currence" appears in contradiction to the rest of the article, which instead states that it was taken over by Interpay who spun off Currence as their holding company for it. The sentence about Postbank appears seriously out of context; we haven't yet been told that Postbank was part of the project, so why is it relevant that they left? The claim that Chipper merged into Chipknip in 2001 appears nowhere in the article; the lead should summarize the content of the article, not provide new claims. Similary, the lead claim of 178 million transactions appears nowhere else, nor does the implicit claim that the rise of contactless payment is somehow connected to the discontinuation of Chipknip. None of these claims are sourced, and much of the content of the rest of the article is not properly summarized in the lead. (GACR 1b, 2c).
The entire "Background" section appears totally irrelevant and without context (GACR 3b). It does not provide adequate background, which I would expect to describe the ways in which Dutch banking of the time operated both at the level of consumers and banks. Instead it appears to describe a sequence of banking-related corporate maneuvers, unrelated to banking operations, with no explanation for how these maneuvers affected consumer behavior.
The first word of prose in the history section is "It". Pronouns need referents. What does "it" refer to? (GACR 1a) Why do we care about some vacuous promotional announcement of a banker (GACR 3b)? Why do we state in Wikipedia's voice that the choice of Arnhem was for one specific reason, only to contradict that in the next sentence, rather than simply putting forth different claims of the reason for the choice and not choosing one of these as the right reason (GACR 4)?
Most of the history is an unstructured sequence of short paragraphs stating that something happened at a certain point in time, or that someone said something. There appears to be no attempt to digest this into a coherent narrative, to pick and choose which of these events were actually important, or to try to make sense of it all. The events are not even chronologically ordered (GACR 3b). One paragraph ("As of January 2000") has an unresolved citation needed tag (GACR 2c). The grammatical problems continue ("do not had", GACR 1a).
Chipper subsection: If this is describing an unsuccessful competitor to Chipknip, it needs to say so, rather than merely providing a context-free list of events. As it is, it appears to be totally irrelevant to the Chipknip article, there to provide filler (GACR 3b). The sentence "In 1997, it was already clear that the Chipper has failed" is an unsourced opinion (GACR 2c).
Similar issues continue with the rest of the article, along with mispellings ("deciced", "eldery").
The "Legal aspects" section describes the state of the system at a specific point in time, but that point is never specified. It is certainly untrue of the time before 2005, because it refers to a company that never existed before then.
The "Technology and security" section is a maze of buzzwords with no attempt at understanding or explaining what it all means. How did any of this affect the practice of using a Chipknip to pay for things, or the security of those payments? I don't believe this section would be understandable to an appropriately broad audience (GACR 1a).
Most of the references appear to be from reliable sources. However, several footnotes go to entire book sources without page numbers, making verification difficult. The author names are spelled inconsistently (is van Engelen's first name Wichert or Richert?). The reference to "Loos, Eugéne" does not appear to be spelled out anywhere else in more detail (GACR 2ab).
I'm not entirely convinced by the claim of uncopyrightability for File:Klein bedrag pinnen mag.svg and of the copyright on File:U kunt hier pinnen + chippen sign, Winschoten (2020) 02.jpg (GACR 6a).
How much of the flow chart of Dutch banking corporations is relevant to Chipknip? What is the relevance of the similar org chart in the legal aspects section? (GACR 6b)
The bar chart illustrations have inadequate captions for explaining their content. (GACR 6b).

Because this is so far from meeting 1a and 3b, I think this is a WP:GAFAIL (#1). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Thanks for reviewing, these are very helpful points. I'll attempt addressing these issues in the coming week, regardless of the decision to WP:GAFAIL. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]