297:, with a little dubiety: the article is very good right now (checking again: yes, still good), but it sure is in flux. I came here yesterday to post an Object screed about choppy prose, excessive length, intimidating TOC, and committee-written Lead, but was prevented from saving by the horribleness of the servers. This morning I find all those never-posted objections taken care of, just as if PFZUN and Bantman read my mind, so support. (Checking again, yes, article still good, phew, now hurry up and save comment.)--
75:-link (with the date when the current fares were looked up, so the used date is more clear to the readers. Also, I don't think that the names of the lines need to be colored with every mention. First mention and the legend next to the chart should be enough. Otherwise, a fine article which I'm happy to support if tweaked. It's grown loads since the last nom.
148:-- ideally a calculation of the ratio of average resident income to average ticket cost, and a comparison to the same ratio for other major public transit train systems around the world (perhaps Paris' Metro, NYC subway, Mexico City subway) and alternative modes of transportation (e.g. taxi fare across the city).
349:. I would like those links in different colours through the main text to be changed to a normal colour (not the first ones next to the map, the other ones wikilinking to the lines), however that's a minor quibble. I fixed up the references, I enthusiastically support this article! Great work :-)
312:
Heh... I agree... I ended up making a bunch of copyedits myself when the support momentum seemed to be rising to a consensus, despite the article's shortcomings. Really all these changes should have been made on peer review. I would have whined that it should have been posted there first, but
317:
substantive peer review before they are ready for a real vote. People pay attention here because it's the last step before the front page; really, more attention paid to PR articles would make all the articles that show up here better, and prevent major editing (like what happened here) from
157:
While much of this may be more appropriate for the MTR corporation article, I believe each of my questions merits at least brief mention in the nominated article. In short, I think the article as it stands looks only at the "front end" of the MTR - physical description, history of physical
33:
Why am I nominating this? Usually I am against granting FA status to short articles, I like long leads and written references. Here, however, is a great example of a good article without any of the qualities I usually prefer: it is short, it has only one paragraph-long lead and only online
34:
references. But all those things are withing the FA guidelines, and I find the article quite comprehensive. And I just love the color text :) Comments? Oh, note that this a relisting of a failed
December nomination, now much improved. Old nomination discussion is here:
102:. It seems to me that there are significant holes in the article in regards to funding and administration. Granted, public finance is my profession so maybe these are obscure and not of general interest, but anyways... questions I'd like to see answered include:
318:
occuring during candidacy. I think that would be A Good Thing. The solution? Perhaps categorizing Peer Review so that articles whose next stop is FAC are separated out somehow from the rest, and could receive more attention from those interested in FAs.
313:(surprise!) it was, receiving no comments. And I flew right by it, commenting on other articles... peer review is just too long a list for people to read each article on it. Nonetheless, articles headed to FAC
158:
description, fares, and payment systems. It is missing a discussion of the entire "back end", which is neither adequately covered in the MTR corporation article, nor even alluded to in the nominated article.
138:
Was there controversy surrounding the public offering (one might expect something, since government owned entities exist to provide service at cost, while most private entities exist to make a profit)?
35:
397:
Isn't this supposed to be Raul654's job? I think there are many very good reasons to leave it in his capable hands. It will be placed on the calendar in due time, no need to rush it.
374:
167:
Much good information has been added, but is still lacking in some areas. I suppose I could live with supporting it even with its remaining gaps, but only after a good
203:
featuring this article. We need more featured articles that aren't about the USA. would like to see some of
Bantman's suggested improvements added as well.
17:
359:-- Very pleased to support this article. It's well done and the pictures accompanying it just really add that extra touch of excellence. -
213:. All the colors in the text are a bit "busy", but it seems rather complete, well laid out, and balanced without being too long.
325:
Thanks, and since you raised the subject, here an inappropriate puff arising from desperation: someone please help with
224:
326:
237:. I'll get cracking and upload all of my MTR pictures tonight and clean up the history section and IPO stuff. --
128:
Do MTR's fares and other revenues cover the cost of operations, or is there some sort of government subsidy?
84:
364:
228:
378:
350:
288:
123:
Were they paid for with government funds (perhaps bonds?) or some sort of public-private partnership?
334:
302:
263:
90:
80:
57:
72:
360:
223:. In the best spirit of non-US solidarity (teehee!), and in the pious hopes that one day our
285:
214:
262:
short at the time of the FAC listing. Not anymore now, but still it's FA quality!! ;) -
227:
will be similarly honoured. Hooray for the Bloor line! Long live the
Spadina streetcar!
47:
330:
298:
252:
398:
319:
238:
188:
176:
160:
114:
39:
329:
which has been sitting on Peer review like patience on a monument since forever!--
204:
391:
387:
275:
38:
and I believe all old objections have been adressed in the new article. --
183:
This article has improved greatly since it was nominated; I will now
109:
How much did the original system and extensions cost to construct?
133:
How has (partial) privatization affected operations and/or fares?
36:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/MTR (old nomination)
370:
27:
69:"Currently, there are two different fare classes on the MTR"
375:
Knowledge (XXG):Today's featured article/January 22, 2005
71:
This can be outdated far too soon. I'd like to see an
274:. Very well written, would make a great FAC.
8:
113:HK$ 5.7 billion. Have added some figures. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
171:(a reorganization of the info in the
40:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
143:The lead section calls the system
24:
377:. Do you agree with this action?
147:. This needs justification : -->
247:. Aside: This is your idea of a
175:section wouldn't hurt either).
1:
418:
322:19:16, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
163:17:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
86:10:07, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
401:06:55, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
394:06:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
291:19:13, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
255:12:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
217:20:39, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
191:23:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
179:02:24, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
42:01:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
381:06:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
367:02:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
353:12:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
337:07:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
327:Shakespeare's reputation
305:07:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
278:18:57, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
266:13:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
241:09:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
231:01:28, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
207:02:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
117:10:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
93:13:03, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
60:07:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
50:02:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
390:, as its my birthday!
373:has been posted on
284:, great article --
73:As of January 2005
229:QuartierLatin1968
409:
417:
416:
412:
411:
410:
408:
407:
406:
386:I would prefer
351:Ta bu shi da yu
65:Minor objection
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
415:
413:
405:
404:
403:
402:
383:
382:
368:
354:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
307:
306:
292:
279:
272:Strong support
269:
268:
267:
242:
232:
218:
208:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
153:
152:
151:
150:
140:
135:
130:
125:
120:
119:
118:
96:
95:
94:
61:
54:Strong Support
51:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
414:
400:
396:
395:
393:
389:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
366:
362:
358:
355:
352:
348:
345:
344:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
321:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
290:
287:
283:
280:
277:
273:
270:
265:
264:Mailer Diablo
261:
257:
256:
254:
250:
246:
243:
240:
236:
233:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
178:
174:
170:
165:
164:
162:
159:
155:
154:
149:
146:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
121:
116:
112:
111:
110:
107:
106:
104:
103:
101:
97:
92:
91:Mailer Diablo
88:
87:
85:
82:
79:
76:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:
58:Mailer Diablo
55:
52:
49:
45:
44:
43:
41:
37:
29:
26:
19:
371:This article
361:SocratesJedi
356:
346:
314:
294:
281:
271:
259:
248:
244:
234:
220:
210:
200:
184:
172:
168:
166:
156:
144:
142:
137:
132:
127:
122:
108:
105:
99:
98:
77:
68:
64:
63:
53:
32:
379:202.75.80.8
388:24 January
286:Spangineer
251:article?--
215:Vaoverland
145:affordable
239:JuntungWu
115:JuntungWu
48:Everyking
46:Support.
331:Bishonen
299:Bishonen
253:ZayZayEM
169:copyedit
89:Done. -
399:Bantman
357:Support
347:Support
320:Bantman
295:Support
282:Support
245:Support
235:Support
221:Support
211:Support
201:Support
189:Bantman
185:support
177:Bantman
173:history
161:Bantman
78:Support
205:Pedant
100:Object
249:short
16:<
392:Páll
365:Talk
335:Talk
315:need
303:Talk
276:Páll
187:it.
260:was
258:It
225:TTC
81:Mgm
28:MTR
363:|
333:|
301:|
67:.
56:.
289:∞
83:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.