Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Octopus card

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:19, 3 August 2007.

Octopus card

edit
FARC, if repromoted, re-categorize at WP:FFA, has been on main page
previous FAC

Article had been demoted from FA status earlier this year. Subsequently I had spent time improving it, eventually succeeding in getting it promoted as a GA article in late May. Then I listed it for a peer review in early June, and the peer review request sat for an entire month without anybody commenting. Now the peer review had been archived, and so I'm just going to go ahead and nominate it for FA. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The non-free media pages don't explain the significance to the article. Jay32183 18:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume you're talking about Image:AdultOctopusCard.jpg and Image:ChildOctopusCard.png? Those are the only non-free images that I see in the article. What kind of explanations would you like to see? One is the adult Octopus card, the other is the child Octopus card. Just a note - the reason that they are marked as fair use is because the designs of the card themselves are copyrighted. There were similar images scanned and uploaded to Commons by individual editors and then tagged as public domain, but they have were speedy deleted as being derivative of copyrighted works. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to see why their inclusion in the article is necessary by means of encyclopedic value. The current rationales suggest they are there for decoration. Jay32183 20:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are necessary in order to show the readers what the cards look like. Would you prefer I remove them? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that's the whole of your rationale, then I would prefer you remove them. Jay32183 23:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, the article explains that the logo on the card is supposed to look like a Mobius strip as well as the arabic numeral 8. There's also a table that lists the picture/colour of different versions of the card. That's why I felt it necessary to have those pictures. But if other reviewers agree that the pictures should be removed, I'd be glad to remove them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have a free image of a Möbius strip so you don't need the non free image for that. If the only other thing you need to show is color, that can also be done in a free way. Jay32183 01:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we just add a fair use rationale to the image. I don't see how one card is distinguishable from the next without an image. Benjwong 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Earlier I inserted more into the "Summary" sections of both of the image spaces. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing that distinguishes their appearance is color, which can be done without a non-free image. You don't need to show the copyrighted image to say the child card is pink. Jay32183 21:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually the design of the child card is different not just by the colour itself. Take a careful look at the images. Anyway, since we're not talking about non-free images of living persons here, and more importantly since there are no free alternatives and the company doesn't generate revenue from the copyright of these designs, I've been assuming that fair use of these images are OK. I'd like to hear what other reviewers have to say about the images also. But I don't want something trivial like this to get in the way of FA status, so like I said, if others also agree that they ought to be removed, I'd be happy to remove them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Jay32183 just gave us the best reasons why we need those images. (YES! you read it right! It's not a typo!) A lot of people don't know the differences between each type of Octopus card because they never use it before, so it's even more important for us to show the differences. What differentates the type is the symbol on the bottom right corner of the card. Child has a lollipop, senior (not shown) has a cane, student (not shown) has a graduation hat. I can tell you that there's no other way to obtain these images. I will support this article in relisted as featured article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although it is for the identification of the cards, it is impossible to use a non-free image to depict them. If the designs are copyrighted, you can't even redraw the octopus card with a pencil and paper, since what you are drawing is still a copy of copyrighted material. So, no free equivalent could exist. And since it's not replaceable, the Fair Use Criteria are met.--Kylohk 09:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose FeliCa says it's an RFID system, but RFID doesn't cover anything as sophisticated as FeliCa's challenge-response public-key encryption. It is actually a "contactless smart card" and both the article and FeliCa should be changed to reflect this. BenB4 09:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this article, Octopus card uses "Sony's 13.56 MHz FeliCa RFID chip". Is there a source that contradicts this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I may have found a response to your concern - according to this other article, the 13.56 MHz RFID chip was designed to be able to handle challenge-response authentication. And the Octopus card uses a 13.56 MHz RFID chip. See if that adequately addresses your concern. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not happy about it, because the vast majority of the use of the term RFID is for a very much simpler set of components, but I suppose it's a buzzword with meaning on the run. BenB4 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah technically speaking, application of radio frequency for identification via a transponder is "RFID". Having actually worked with RFID in my career, I understand that the term "RFID" has become quite buzz-wordy because we're finding more and more application with this simple technology. But I do want to point out that the article does introduce Octopus card as a contactless "smart card", and only mentions "RFID" in the Technology section, and specifically that the card uses an RFID chip. Maybe the term "RFID" is spammed and abused elsewhere here on WP or in real life, but I don't really see this article doing that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Having read the article through, I say it's very well written. The tech spec part is understandable, even though I am a person who has little interest in the internal workings of stuff outside academic hours.--Kylohk 11:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just as in FARC, for failing 1a.
    • "widely-used" is still there at the top: I've pointed it out in a previous nomination. NO HYPHENS AFTER -LY WORDS: please read the MOS.
    • "has garnered international recognition"—This is a lah-de-dah way of writing "has been internationally recognised".
    • "there are currently over 14 million cards"—Remove "currently". Some people prefer "more than", but it's up to you.
    • "used by 95% of the population of Hong Kong"—Hard to believe. Babies too?
    • "These cards were either used as single journey tickets or as stored value tickets."—"The" is strong-enough a backreference here. Reverse "either used"—see why? In fact, get rid of the rubbish: "used as either single or stored-value tickets". Yes? Tony 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've addressed the issues you've listed.
        • Got rid of the hyphen in "widely-used".[1]
        • Changed "garnered international recognition" to "been internationally recognised".[2]
        • Specified that 95% of the population aged 16 to 65 uses the card. This information is taken directly from the source at ref number 4 that provided statistics of usage.[3]
        • Got rid of "currently" and changed "over" to "more than".[4]
        • Altogether deleted the sentence "These cards were either used as single journey tickets or as stored value tickets", and specified in the preceeding sentence that the magnetic plastic cards so mentioned were used as fare tickets.[5] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it weird that child cards are not counted in. Child card is valid for those from age 3-12. I thought the "used by 95% of the population of Hong Kong" is not too approrpriate as well. You never know the exact amount of people who holds a card, and the % will be less than this statement as some people have multiple cards. I for one, have 2 adult cards. My parents have another 3 cards and 2 watches (each watch = 1 card). That totals to 7 cards used by a family of three. But we have to treat this reference as accurcate since the rules limited us to interpret. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95% of the population aged 16-65 is exactly what the source says. That's a good point that it excludes child cards. But it's not difficult to derive the percentage of the population that use the card despite the fact that many people obviously have multiple cards. Instead of looking at the number of cards issued, all they need to do is look at what percentage of travelers use the card on the MTR or KCR as opposed to the single-fare magnetic strip cards, or what percentage of bus and mini-bus riders use the card as opposed to using cash. Heck, ride the bus or the MTR during rush hour and you'd think that Octopus card usage was actually 100%. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the source sounds far fetched, I think it actually may be true. If the adoption rate is 95%, you have 1 in 20 people using cash. When I ride a bus, minibus or MTR, most people don't touch the ticket machines or insert coins anymore. The only people I find using the ticket machines are tourists. So, it does sound real.--Kylohk 05:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Heck, ride the bus or the MTR during rush hour and you'd think that Octopus card usage was actually 100%." *nod* I definetely agrees on that. I find those that don't use Octopus card a bit weird (excluding tourists). Sometimes I get on the bus and for the whole trip, nobody goes for coins, they just use the card. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, 95% doesn't sound far-fetched at all. I would have thought that it was an even higher percentage. Even for tourists, I've found that people who blog about their travels usually talk about the Octopus card when they blog about visiting Hong Kong (I came across these blogs while online-researching for more info on the card). Also I wanted to point out, if you look at the end of the intro, the article specifically states that 14 million cards are in circulation. Maybe a line should be inserted after that to point out that that is twice the population of Hong Kong. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved. But still needs work. Get another person to go through it, please.
    • "reward dollars" and similar—See MOS on "words as words".
    • "However, the cardholder may not elect to only use a partial amount of "reward dollars" as payment." Clumsy. Push "only" as late as possible in a sentence. "A", not "the" cardholder. Better still, merge with the next sentence and make it positive. Pluralise. To redeem ..., carholders must use the whole amount of ...
    • "In MTR and KCR stations, enquiry machines can be found where one can place his/her Octopus Card"—Grammar. Get rid of the pronounds. "where cardholders can place their ...".
    • Still lots of redundant words: "even if the card is held in a wallet or a purse" (held);
    • "Also, as of .." Yuck. Remove "also".
    • "Two main types of Octopus cards exist, On-Loan cards and Sold cards, together with two other less common types, the Airport Express Tourist Octopus and the MTR Airport Staff Octopus." Yuck. "There are two main types of Octopus card (On-Loan and Sold), and two less common types (the Airport Express Tourist and the MTR Airport Staff)".

This is way way sub-professional writing. Urgent attention required throughout; I'm sure Raul is sick of it by now. Please let me know when to look again. Tony 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Tony, thanks for reviewing the article again. I'm certainly not a professional writer in any capacity, so I've missed areas in the article that reflect sub-professional writing. If you know of a professional writer on WP who is willing to help improve the article, that would be a lot of help. I only wish someone like you had reviewed the article when I had listed it for peer review - but not one editor responded to the peer review request! At any rate, I think I've addressed your concerns:
    • "Words as words" problem fixed.[6]
    • Sentence about using partial or entire amounts of reward dollars has been reworded per suggestions.[7]
    • Pronouns removed.[8]
    • Got rid of redundant word.[9]
    • Got rid of "also".[10]
    • "Two main types of Octopus cards..." sentence re-worded.[11]
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose These fixes needed:

  • I don't think "mathematical", "library", "public transport" and "mobile phone" need wikilinking.
  • "The Octopus system was launched after three years of trials on 1997-09-01." - incorrect date format as per WP:DATE
  • "As of November 21, 2004" - comma not needed, as per WP:DATE
  • "in order to indicate the card's "infinite" possibilities" – the "in order" is redundant
  • "and even between operating routes within the same company" - "within" is inappropriate. An operating route can't be within a company.
  • "available upon registration" - "upon" is overly formal and archaic. Use "on" instead.
  • "conferred upon its cardholders" - "upon"
  • "Some notable businesses that accept Octopus cards include" – the "some" is redundant
  • "with six participating financial institutions offering an option" - the use of "with" as an additive link should be avoided. It's best to use a semicolon instead.
  • "wholly-owned subsidiary" shouldn't be hyphenated
  • "15% of Octopus card transactions" - % should be spelled out in words, as per WP:NUM
  • "a discount of up to 64%" - %
  • "while the mobile phone covers were specifically designed" – "while" should only be used when emphasising that two events occur at the same time, or when emphasising contrast. It shouldn't be used as an additive link.
  • "There are two versions of this card" – sentences shouldn't start with "there" when the "there" doesn't stand for anything
  • "and many other point-of-sale applications" – the "many" is redundant
  • "with very few coins used" – the "very" is redundant
  • "various school administrative tasks such as" – the "various" is redundant
  • "that connect the various components that deal with" – the "various" is redundant
  • "the first city outside of Hong Kong" – the "of" is redundant
  • Some cites aren't placed immediately after punctuation.
  • "is between 30 and 100 mm" - non-breaking space and imperial equivalents needed. Epbr123 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me work on these. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've addressed all your issues. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DATE states, "ISO 8601 dates (1976-05-12) are uncommon in English prose, and are generally not used in Wikipedia. However, they may be useful in long lists and tables for conciseness and ease of comparison."
  • WP:CITE states, "Some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation. For example: President Bush called for a halt to the violence,[3] and opposed a timetable for withdrawal.[4]". Epbr123 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just about to work on those dates, actually. Tony answered my question in the WP:MOSDATE talk page. Initially I was confused because wikilinking them should make them show up according to your user preference. But then I realised that anonymous readers won't have user preferences. The cite problem - I simply just misread your sentence. I thought you wrote "cities". Let me go through and fix them now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:05, 31 July 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Octopus_card&oldid=1138468154"