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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)[edit]

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]

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. [Now strong object, see below for revised discussion]. 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]
No personal attacks indeed, and that coming from someone who appear to be placing ego above the good of wikipedia and trying to force his personal viewpoint into this article even after failing to gather any concensus. There are little sources to show that platform doors prevent all cases of suicides and intrusions into unauthorised areas, simply because none has ever happened since 1987. Since you took it in your liberty to change the word, then do you have the sources to support your edit? As you say, no one owns this article, so why do you somehow think it is my onus to support a point, while you are not? I personally find your insistance in using [2] as the sole reasoning for "enhance" over "ensure" as lacking in reasonable depth. I suppose we cant use any other word in this article which does not appear in these sources as well? Just because the same reference claims that it is "committed" to the safety of commuters, we have to accept that whole-heartledly and without question, as thou propaganda and advertisement are acceptable as far as NPOV is concerned? You take one wikipolicy and overemphasize it to justify your aims at the neglect of others. Verifiability is very important. So is NPOV. The source you try to use to support your claims is weak at best, for while you take so much issue in its context here, you appear to be ready to neglect it in the sources you refer to. Do we still need to take your concerns seriously here, then?--Huaiwei 15:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Calm down. If you want to make a claim that a safety program is 100% successful, you need a verifiable source. I'm not claiming it is; I'm not claiming it isn't. The article text should reflect only what's verifiable; editing text to reflect that Wikipedia policy isn't NPOV-violating. Monicasdude 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you haven't even responded to my replies to your other reasons of objection yet (and even the one about 'ensuring' safety). So please. - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you will do good doing exactly what you preach. I dont see how you could tell others to read wikipolicies and avoiding personal attacks when you are no saint either. In fact, least you dont realise, telling others to avoid personal attacks is a personal attack in itself. Dont spurn responsbility for what you did. You attempted to amend a word to signify a different meaning, so you arent exactly "claiming nothing". If you cannot support your own edition, in what position do you have to tell others to? I dont really want to talk about you, but you leave yourself open as a giant target board simply by the way you conduct yourself here. I think we can discuss the topic at hand without adopting a high-handed attitude, engaging in edit warring, and trying to fish our wikipolicies to support one's stand and to remind others about them when they are not due.--Huaiwei 16:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Calm down. If you want to make a claim that a safety program is 100% successful, you need a verifiable source. I'm not claiming it is; I'm not claiming it isn't. The article text should reflect only what's verifiable; editing text to reflect that Wikipedia policy isn't NPOV-violating. Monicasdude 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
After noticing [3], I discovered I dont really need to talk further about this (trival) issue. I am apparantly dealing with someone notorious in his craft. Enough said.--Huaiwei 17:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ensure-safety-sbs.jpg
Letter to The Straits Times, published on website on Dec 24, preserved as a record for debate. It has also added as a reference to the collection of foonotes in the article itself.
  • In the latest twist of the ensure vs promote saga, a letter writtern by SBS Transit, one of the rail operators, to the Straits Times today uses the word ensure. [4]. The assumption that the operators only use "promote" and not "ensure" is proven false...and quite timely indeed.--Huaiwei 22:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't make things up. I never suggested that official sources used the term promote; I did quote accurately from official statements which used a different term. The letter you cite is from the public relations department of the company, and Wikipedia should not reflexively quote PR flakking. Monicasdude
  • Land Transport Authority itself has also used the word 'ensure' in a similiar context. [5]. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You consider quotes from public relations executives as unacceptable, yet you think it perfectly fine to quote from government officials. I didnt know governmental propaganda is more acceptable to wikipedia, but as I said earlier, if we are going to read comments from such sources with a pinch of salt, please apply the same standards throughout.--Huaiwei 04:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Stop distorting what I said. I said that a government statement of policy is preferred, as a Wikipedia source regarding the policy, to an editor's interpretation of that policy; and that, in a dispute over terminology, the language of the policy should be preferred absent verifiable evidence that language is inaccurate. Monicasdude 14:22, 25 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 [6]. 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. 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]
  • If he doesn't tell us what exactly the problems are, can we cross this out until its clarified? -- Natalinasmpf 11:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have to. This will be taken as unactionable, as we are not told in detail what is the problem. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, I've brought replacement photos! =D Should be up tomorrow. - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

  • Support. Nice article, well structured, very informative, well referenced. Beautiful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nice blend of text and graphics, easy to read, good structure. Sufficiently footnoted and referenced. Provides good material without being bloated with nonnotable trivia. Only complaint is that the article is a bit too long, suggest cutting down sections that have their own main articles. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong object. This article fails the general Wikipedia verifiability standard as well as FA criteria. First, the article is superficially researched. Most of the sources cited are press releases from agencies/sources involved in the operation of the rail system. Most of the other sources are local news media. There is no indication that the subject has ever been researched in accordance with [Wikipedia standards]. Second, the text of the article is often inconsistent with (sometimes outright contradictory with) the references.
For example, reference 8 supposedly backs up an apparently factual statement about the system planners' "agenda" priorities regarding "crime" and "terrorism." The material cited is available online here [7]. The source is a statement of opinion from a consulting business; it never discusses the actual "agenda" or priorities of the system planners; and it never addresses the subject of "terrorism." It is a very subjective piece of analysis; to pick a conspicuous problem with citing it as factual, note the source discussion's treatment of "discouragement of loitering." It says this policy does not address crime and security, but that it (and other policies) "had (unintended) spins-offs favourable in producing conditions desirable for the prevention of crime." Whatever the consultant's opinion, similar "quality of life" policies are implemented in other transit systems -- most conspicuously, I think, in New York City under Giuliani -- as part of a crime control program. Statements of opinion should not be cited as factual, particularly statements as dubious as this one.
Another dubious use of reference is #10, where the text refers to "plans" to introduce new security features; the source text indicates the installation should have been completed over a year ago; the article text is obsolete. Other references have similar timeframe problems; for example, the intro refers to closing a "gap" between rail and bus usage, as a current phenomenon, but the references which supposedly support it are based on changes over 7-10 years, not current usage trends.
More generally -- and in part related to the often poor match between text and references -- the text is riddled with NPOV and verifiability problems. Statements like "ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services," "most problems have been rectified," and "a disparity that SBS Transit justified by citing higher operational and maintenance costs and lower patronage" are not verified by outside sources, are generally not sourced at all, and may be inherently unverifiable. In general, the article has a strong POV that the transit system is well-run and meets its planners' goals. This may or may not reflect general opinion, but it does not conform to NPOV/verifiability policies, and the pertinent sections need to be recast and properly sourced. To take a conspicuous example, although one of the transit system's goals is to reduce "traffic congestion" and limit private vehicle use, the available data (cited in reference 2) shows that the net effect of rail expansion is simply to reduce bus system use; overall mass transit use is essentially constant, while private vehicle use is growing substantially. The article should not take a position about the success or failure of the initiative, but to meet the FA comprehensiveness standard it must discuss the subject and present the relevant data in accordance with NPOV/verifiability standards.
Finally, it should be clear that the sometimes belligerent stance taken by the article's proponents is not helpful, and the way that they personalize editorial disputes is not appropriate. And the freequency with which those who support a candidacy refuse to address objections, but dismiss them as unaddressable, as has happened here, is disturbing. The responsibility for bringing an article up to FA standards rests on those who advance the candidacy; those who object are not required to do more than identify problems. Monicasdude 15:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
All FAs have contributors doing researches, dude. If there is no research, than it will be a stub forever. Then why many of the FAs have been researched. A good article needs lots of research. Everyone will have to do some research! What you said is illogical and made no sense! Are you trying to prevent the article from being promoted? Has anyone made so much complains about this? You have removed what I wrote at your talk page and you have been in similar controversies. Then why didn't you say when we were having our peer review. Why here? We have done our best here. We have did everything, then why don't you do it. I think you are trying to prevent FACs. Could you please give a better definition. You are only making criticisms which are not constructive. --Terence Ong Talk 17:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving a prime example of personalizing an editing dispute. As I have said before, stop talking about me and resume discussing the article. Monicasdude 18:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First, the article is superficially researched. Most of the sources cited are press releases from agencies/sources involved in the operation of the rail system. Most of the other sources are local news media." - Show me that you are able to obtain sources that are not involved in the operation of the system, and are not of the local media. Otherwise, this is considered unactionable. Consider the safety & security incidents, note that you attempt to discredit ref 8, which is a source by a foreign agency. Are you able to obtain references from foreign media pointing to these incidents? - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith response. No Wikipedia policy/guideline regarding FAs requires objector to FA candidacy to repair defects in research or noncompliance with Wikipedia policies. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The source is a statement of opinion from a consulting business" Proof please. I'd be glad to hear some background information about the agency that made you decide to discredit it. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Statement, in its original context, is self-evidently a statement of opinion/interpretation. Identifying a source as a "consulting business" does not "discredit" it, merely identifies it, and the nature of the organization is made clear on its homepage.Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar "quality of life" policies are implemented in other transit systems -- most conspicuously, I think, in New York City under Giuliani -- as part of a crime control program.". "I think" is subjective. Again, factual proof please. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith response. Verification standards for article text do not apply to talk page discussions; the comment "I think" refers to "most conspicuous." Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where the text refers to "plans" to introduce new security features; the source text indicates the installation should have been completed over a year ago; the article text is obsolete" - refer to ref 10, "The whole upgrading exercise will cost SMRT about S$7.8 million, and is scheduled to be completed by 2006." - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read your source carefully to avoid inaccuracy. The article discusses several different projects , and the main subject is a project that should already be completed, as per its title: " CCTVs at 35 elevated MRT stations to have recording capability by Oct 2004." Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intro refers to closing a "gap" between rail and bus usage, as a current phenomenon, but the references which supposedly support it are based on changes over 7-10 years, not current usage trends. Ref 2, look under public transport utilisation. The full data is avaliable on print reference. We did our checks. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith response. Editor acknowledges that reference does not support text and declines to provide verification of text. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not quite understand where your dissatisfaction with this line stems from. Changes in public usage trends can only be guaged by looking at changes over time. You insist historical data from 1994 to 2004 does not support continued trends today. How does data showing this trend in the period between 1994 to 2004 fail to demonstrate this, when it is the most current data available and 2005 has obviously not concluded yet?--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services,". SMRT Corporation operates a consolidated service of taxis, buses and trains. ComfortDelGro, parent company of SBS Transit, owns Citycab and Comfort taxis. Aren't all three forms of public transportation under two giant companies form integrated services? - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Common ownership has very little verifiable relationship to service integration. Verifiable sourcing is required for each case. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very little? How do you demonstrate the lack of this relationship then? In addition, the quote you took was from the opening summary paragraphs, which may not dwell on this line in detail. If you may look further down, however, you will notice this line "Because the fare system has been integrated by TransitLink". TransitLink [8], for your information, is a company established by the two major transport operators, with a role of establishing and maintaining "a fully Integrated Public Transport System is one in which buses, the MRT and the LRT combine their services to provide a single planned network.". Perhaps we may help write the article for TransitLink to demonstrate this intergration instead of clogging up this article over these details?--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a disparity that SBS Transit justified by citing higher operational and maintenance costs and lower patronage". Did you read my sources throughoutly? It in LTA's reply that I've posted above. I shall not repeat here. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Found something better. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The fare increase is not "justified" simply because its proponents claim it is justified, and the article fails NPOV because it omits the contrary arguments made by opponents. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states that the justification comes from the transport operator, and not by the article's own conclusion. In other words, your charge on its NPOV would only be valid if the article states that the fare is justified without mentioning it was the viewpoint of SBS Transit.--Huaiwei 01:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In general, the article has a strong POV that the transit system is well-run and meets its planners' goals."..."goals is to reduce "traffic congestion" and limit private vehicle use" Private cars part of planner's goals, where? Don't make things up. from MRT article, "The network has since grown rapidly, as a result of Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network and reducing dependency on road-based systems, such as *read* the bus network." The term 'Private cars' does not even appear in History of the Mass Rapid Transit. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
'Bad faith response. Read your own sources and related articles, like this one [9] or this one [10] or this one [11] or this one [12] or this one [13] or this one [14], to cite only a few of many easy-to-find online references. Quoting a lousy Wikipedia article to support a not-very-good Wikipedia article isn't very convincing. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attempt to read the entire text here, but this one caught my eye. If Moni is trying to argue that the MRT was built to limit private vehicle usage, and using those sources as a demonstration of this, may I just point out, that none of the souces mentioned by him makes any mention of that. The closest one could get is a reference to the entire public transport system, and not the MRT itself alone. Any person well aware of this history behind the building of the MRT, and the MRT debates of the 1980s will know, that the MRT was built as an option to move away from a public transport system dependent on buses, and not to directly alleviate road usage, even if it was also successful in contributing to the later.--Huaiwei 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith response. Systematically responding to criticism by claiming an Assume good faith violation indicates an unwillingness to comply with Wikipedia conduct guidelines and policies. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The responsibility for bringing an article up to FA standards rests on those who advance the candidacy; those who object are not required to do more than identify problems." Not nessecery. Problems must be backed up with hard evidence that it is such, and actionable for a objection to stand. Failing which, it may be considered as a incorrect, frivolous, or bad faith objection per WP:POINT. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This does not reflect Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is extremely inappropriate for an admin to fabricate policy to support his position in an editing dispute. The applicable policy states, in part, that If you nominate an article, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised and Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Policy does not require "hard evidence" of problems; this invented requirement makes very little sense in the FAC context, especially when used, as you use it, to demand that an objection to an unverified statement requires proof that the statement is false.
I note that, overall, you do not dispute the existence of the NPOV and verifiability problems I've cited, and that you make no effort to address them. Monicasdude 02:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that others really wish to talk about you, Moni, but your aggression in attempting to enforce your POV into an article promotes some discussion into the basis of your POV, all the more so when your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other. That you could go to great lengths just to insist on favouring a term over another when both are used interchangeably and by the very organisations you tried to quote from demonstrates the irrationality of the entire exercise. How else do we explain this irrationality without talking about you, then, when all of it stems from you alone?--Huaiwei 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other" - that's not a valid argument. Sometimes the minority are right; attempt to address them.
  • "How else do we explain this irrationality without talking about you, then, when all of it stems from you alone?" - that is a personal attack. Even if you were attacked, don't attack back. Peace everyone. enochlau (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Peace please. Kindness here. Remember no personal attacks Thanks. :) My suggestion is to you dude, why don't you go and help an article reach FA status instead of making criticisms. Write something about yourself. I have a lot of my questions about you. Create something that is encyclopedic and of your own interest. You will be respected here if you help an article which FA status, than receiving dislikes and controversy. Comments only help make things worse, and rub salt into the wound. --Terence Ong Talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Your concerns are not exactly echoed by any other" - is a valid argument until you posted your comment below, which I wished you could have raised earlier. Anyhow, lets discuss some of them...--Huaiwei 09:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will refrain from voting now; the article is reasonably good, but I have some concerns which I would like to raise. These primarily revolve around referencing (some have been raised by Monicasdude, but if I repeat them here, it means I don't believe they were answered adequately):
    • "... as a result of Singapore's aim of developing a comprehensive rail network and reducing dependency on road-based systems, such as the bus network." - reference please?
    • "a figure that pales in comparison with bus patronage of 2.8 million bus network" - I think ditching the word "pales" would help give it a more neutral tone, and in any case, that part is ungrammatical.
    • "These operators also run bus and taxi services, thus ensuring that there is a full integration of public transport services." - reference please as to the ensuring of integration? Ensuring is probably the wrong word I think as well - too suggestive of perfect integration.
      • See points I raised above.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first three sentences in the "History" section need referencing; I'm not demanding a reference of every sentence, but I think those are important facts that should be backed up.
      • Most of the history sections are writtern based on a single source, such as the books listed as references below. Will try to add in the references if need be, hopefully without overwelming it with reference after reference.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it odd how safety and security are discussed before amenities. It's probably more encyclopedic to discuss a whole lot of uncontroversial, established facts before going into such emotive aspects as safety and security. Minor issue, not something I'd oppose over...
    • The safety section seems a little too glowing in its appraisal of safety measures. Perhaps a litle more criticism.
      • As this is just a summary, more of this criticism are available at the sub page.
      • Fact is there are relatively little safety issues on the MRT system, for incidents are few and far between. The "positive" slant of this section reflects its good safety record, so its difficult to "neutralise" it by over-emphasizing instances of safety breaches and accidents. Doing so may also be considered introducing a POV in itself.--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • A suggestion: could safety and security sections be merged? After all security is related to safety.
    • "Fire safety standards are consistent with the strict guidelines of the US National Fire Protection Association." - reference please?
    • "As of December 2005, 12 stations are undergoing retrofitting and will be handicapped-accessible by early 2007." - reference please?
      • LTA email by a user, Ignoramus. You can check it out with him and ask him for the source. --Terence Ong Talk 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the paragraph on paid and unpaid areas, and single trip/time-based fares confusing. Are they related? If not, they should go in separate paragraphs. Since that section is a summary of the main article linked, perhaps bullet points might illustrate the differences better.
    • "Fares are kept affordable by pegging them approximately to distance-related bus fares, thus encouraging commuters to use the network and reduce its heavy reliance on the bus system." - needs a reference.
      • Not that easy to provide a reference unless we start listing fares for buses here...--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Magnetic tickets (1987–2001) section: too much detail for a summary section. Is it really important to list prices in the 1980s? This section together with EZ-Link cards and Standard Tickets (2001–present) could do with more references.
    • Section MRT rolling stock: could do with a more balanced approach. Problems with these vehicles are a glaring omission.
    • "Architectural themes became an issue only in subsequent stages" - needs a reference
      • This is evident in the design of stations over time, from simple boxes to elaborate works of art as explained in the subsequent lines, unless we need to further expand on that section?--Huaiwei 09:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When completed, the line will connect all the existing MRT lines, and will allow commuters to travel around the country without passing through the downtown area, reducing congestion there." - reduces congestion? Says who?
    • "The Bukit Timah Line, when constructed, is expected to alleviate heavy traffic along the Bukit Timah corridor. The Eastern Region Line and Jurong Region Line will benefit residents at both ends of the East–West Line." - says who? Might benefit from writing in more neutral words, e.g. lose "benefit" etc.
    • References section: If these were used, it would be good to have them merged with the footnotes section, and have them referenced from the article body. Although it may be acceptable in high school to have a general bibliography section at the end, I think here you need to say which statements actually came from those sources.
    • "bolstering Singapore's reputation of being a "fine city"" - it is explained in the linked article, but captions should be self-contained.
    • "An artist's representation of the MRT network..." - lose the words "artist's representation" maybe.
  • I hope these were constructive in nature and something you can work off. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding about all the issues you have raised. I was the one who didn't do the major editing, it was Mailer Diablo, but now he is on an indefinite wikibreak, I don't know much about it. However, I can answer some of the questions you've pointed out. There is no problem in removing the word "pales", regarding the renovation thing, it was a user who emailed LTA and got a reply from them and was in the news, the source may have removed the article since. No problem with merging Safety and Security. A lot of this, I'm not sure but you may like to ask other SGpedians about this. I can help to change the caption, no problem. MRT fares in the 1980s and magnectic tickets played an improtant role then, to compare the fares then and now to see the difference. The rolling stock, can be expanded. Thanks for your comments. --Terence Ong Talk 06:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the things written are factual, or there is no internet source due to the date (when there was no internet), or they have removed it. We have put all the criticism in already, there is no more, unless you would like to give a criticism. Uh...SMRT and SBS Transit runs bus and taxi services which is stated on their website, there are too many references and this tiny references are not really needed. --Terence Ong Talk 07:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can never have too many references. If the Internet source is gone, what about printed material? It poses a problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Although you might like to try the Internet Archive... enochlau (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible, such as when you have a reference after every single line or every word. If you may look at academic works and most publications, referencing is usually done after each referenced idea (or collection of ideas), and usually not on a point by point or sentence-by-sentence basis for that would be far too impractical and reduces readibility of the article in question. Most of the referencing Terence noted are actually available somewhere else, so we will try to look into it where possible.--Huaiwei 10:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I am going away for a while, I won't be able to follow the developments of this article. I hope I don't make it too complex for the closing admin but I shall support this article if the nominators show that they have addressed or at least considered the majority of the points I have raised above, otherwise consider this to be an oppose vote. enochlau (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has come a long way and is up to standard. Good Job! Advanced 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me. SECProto 22:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mass_Rapid_Transit_(Singapore)&oldid=1138466605"