Wikipedia:Featured article review/Octopus card/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 removed 14:50, 18 January 2007.

---

Octopus card

Review commentary

Messages left on related noticeboards of WP:CHINA, WP:HK and at Juntung -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Additional messages at Nurismatics. Sandy (Talk) 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC) and WT:HKWNB WP 11:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This article was featured way back in Feb 2005. It has been almost two years now, and while I was going through it, I thought, it needs a review and significant improvements based on current standards. I'll list some of which I feel, may be needed.

• Individual paragraphs are very small. A decent copy editing will help.
• Inline external links be removed and cite.php be used.
• Although the article has a lot of valuable data and information, they have to be organised in a much better way.
• There are a lot of stuff unnecessarily in parenthesis, which needs to be cleaned up.

Please feel free to add more comments if you've got any, to improve the article. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} 00:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments (Yikes, that's a long sig line). Inadequate citation, external jumps, sections headings don't conform to WP:MOS, mixed reference style, references are blue links which should be expanded, doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT, prose needs attention. Sandy (Talk) 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, lacks of inline citations and sections are rather long. Suggest moving to FARC since I don't see much improvement. Terence Ong 08:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, unaddressed. Sandy (Talk) 01:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub paragraphs, organization, and focus (2), citation sufficiency and format (1c). Marskell 17:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—Flabby writing. Here are a few examples from the top.
  • "widely-used"—No hyphens after 'ly words.
  • " not only for virtually all public transport in Hong Kong, but also for"—"not only ... but also" is such a tired expression, and an unnecessary marker here.
  • "In addition,"—Every sentence is in addition; remove.
  • "Some charities even accept Octopus cards to receive donations."—Replace "to receive" with "for".
  • "Making a payment involves placing the card in close proximity to an Octopus card reader and a tone from the reader will confirm the merchant has received funds." Clumsy: "and" is awkward as a joiner here; "will" is doubtful; "that" required before "the merchant".
  • "with approximate 14 million Octopus cards"—sloppy.
  • "and other transport providers in Hong Kong such as KCR, KMB, and Citybus." The "such as" means there are some you're not telling us about. Is that the case?
  • Seriously under-referenced.

Fast train to demotion. Tony 05:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per long list of unaddressed problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 10:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

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.