Talk:Chipknip/GA1

GA Review
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)

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)


 * @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)