Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/O-Bahn Busway

O-Bahn Busway
A well-written and comprehensive article on a unique subject. Has recieved positive feedback and undergone peer review. It is my fourth featured article nomination, and hopefully my third featured article.

All queries will be dealt with reasonably and as soon as possible. michael talk 16:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Well done. Nice. Jam01 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support—Why aren't all FACs as well written? I may have a few queries later, but these will be minor. Tony 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support I think it's a great article. There are two things, however, that might be nice to change. The last couple of paragraphs from the history section are more appropriately "the future." It would be nice to split them off, perhaps at the end as "the future of the busway." The word "carparks" is, I assume, a common word in Australia. I think that "space to park x cars" would sound better, but I understand if that is unacceptable. The only other thing is the note about Tom Wilson at the end - I suspect it is there to explain the reference with his name in it, but it might be nice to either move into the main text or delete. I don't know that I've seen a note used that way before. You might also trim a few external links. InvictaHOG 23:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can remove if it's a nuisance, but I just thought the nod to Wilson would be a nice addition. I never knew 'carparks' was a purely Australian term! michael talk 05:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Question Did I miss it or is there nothing in here about how successfull this has been and its level of ridership? It does 'most heavily patronized guided busway', but just how successful is that? 10%, 70%, or??? Rlevse 23:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do have some statistics regarding its ridership. However, I didn't include them because I felt such an addition would compromise the article's neutrality. If there's a demand for them, I'll go through my notes and see about their entry - they've only been rising since 1986. michael talk 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is put one line in the body of the text somewhere as in the opening you say it's great but then don't support it. Rlevse 11:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. It was a brilliant article to begin with, and it has improved greatly since then. Rebecca 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Surprisingly good. Yet another strange topic is conquered by FA. RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment—"car park" is correct, with the space. Patronage stats would be useful, if kept concise. I don't see NPOV arising from them. Tony 07:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comment : The article begins with a rather grand sounding but entirely unsourced statement that this is the fastest, longest, and most heavily traveled guided busway in the world. A source is needed for the statement.  It would also be good to put it in context: how many guided busways are there, and how do they compare to other mass transit systems?  It may be that the quantitative comparison really isn't all that important, and you have given a qualitative comparison, which strikes me as more interesting. (While I'm rather overdoing the picking at this small nit, I might as well also note that it's good to date such facts, since they do, inevitably, become dated). Best, Sam 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've switched my "comment" to oppose for two reasons: (1) the comment should have been easy to deal with, and I am concerned that it has not been; and (2)since it wasn't, I read a bit of the article and found a number of statements that seemed irrelevant and so did not flow. Just looking at the last couple of paragraphs, we see: "[s]ix million dollars of the total cost was used for the redevelopment of the Torrens Gorge, in which the Torrens Linear Park was created." This statement leaves me wondering what the Torrens Gorge and its redevelopment have to do with the O-Bahn. Was this simply an unrelated project thrown in on the same budget for political reasons, or did construction of the O-Bahn damage the Gorge requiring redevelopment?  Clicking the Gorge link doesn't help, as that gets me to the Torrens River, which is not obviously related. Likewise, there is a comparison of ticketing subsidies of $2.90 versus $8.80 for the railways.  Why are these comparable?  Are the lengths of rides the same or similar, or is the $8.80 a subsidy for a potentially much longer ticket?  It seems there are a number of relevancy issues like this throughout.  Organizationally, I don't mind that only level 2 headings are used given how concise the article is, but having an initial lengthy section followed by increasingly shorter and choppier sections makes it look like the authors just ran out of steam. So, I think there is some work to be done to put a bit more meat on the well-drafted bones. Sam 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article goes on about how the Torrens Gorge was landfill and how it was redeveloped with the O-Bahn. It is brought up several times in the history section and again in the environment section.
 * Thaks for the quick response; I've reread and seen the discussion. I stand corrected.  Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the government subsidy for tickets; it's supposed to be an example of how cost-effective the O-Bahn is in comparison to the rail system.
 * Yes, but why is it relevant? Are these subsidies for similar rides, or are you comparaing apples and oranges? Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * With the purchase of a Adelaide Metro ticket, a $2.90 subsidy is required by the O-Bahn, a $8.80 by a train. Am I not making this clear enough in the article? Feel free to suggest how to improve the wording.
 * I made some changes, and perhaps you will see my point there. What I am not certain of is the relevance of the amount of subsidiary per ticket (especially given that you apparently buy one ticket for use across the entire system, so I'm not sure how you separate the subsidy level for one versus another without allocating some of each ticket to cover the expense of each system). If the government subsidizes meals for low income people, I'm not sure the fact that the subsidy of quarter-pound hamburger may be 25 cents while the subsidy of a one pound steak may be $1 has much meaning; the subsidy for the chocolate bar is lower, but you are both getting four times as much steak and most people would rather eat steak than burger. A comparison of the subsidy per pound of meat (or per mile of average ride) would be more directly comparable.  Does this make clear my concern? Sam 17:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have statistics as you would wish. The ones I am using are from parliamentary debate about the O-Bahn where the MP's discuss it cost-effectiveness. The calculation is not a pure science, but it does show how much more the rail system costs. michael talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added usage statistics in the history section.
 * Thank you. I think these are useful.  But is 22,000 riders really the most heavily patronized system in the world? The fact that so little of its capacity is being used makes me wonder if it is successful at all compared to the hopes for it. Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its capacity is 'potential' (as noted). The area it serves will never take advantage of its huge capacity, even if every person there used it daily. It is the first large-scale guided bus system and none built since has matched it. There are only small systems in the United Kingdom and the tiny original section of O-Bahn track in Essen.
 * It would still be good to support statements like "fastest, longest, most heavily patronized" with a citation. I do wonder how relevant it is, especially since the definition of guided bus seems to sidestep systems like Boston's Bus Rapid Transit system, which uses a dedicated lane, is often but not always guided by overhead wires and by advanced electronics.  I think you've got a nice article about a system that is clearly fast, that is 12 kilometers long, and carries 22,000 passengers a day.  What I'm still left wondering is what the citation is for it being the fastest, longest and most heavily patronized and why is it important that it is the fastest, longest, and most heavily patronized - it seems so much more important that it is a fairly unique system. Sam 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to "fastest and longest" and provided reference. "Heavily patronised" is accurate, but I have no explicit reference, so it has been changed. michael talk 02:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I Hope these comments / changes allievate your concerns. michael talk 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * They help, and I appreciate the quick response, though as noted I still have some queries. Best, Sam 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support An oddly interesting article on a very specific and unique subject. >s?My only suggestion would be finding an appropriate article to link to for the "carbon-neutral" statement under Environment as everyone might not be familiar with that term. Nevermind, I did it. Easier than I thought. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - again excelent.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support brilliant article for a very interesting topic. The only thing that needs to change is its title, but we'll deal with that post-FAC.--cj | talk 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, with some minor comments: The caption on the new tram image (beginning "A quarter of a century later" doesn't seem right. I think captions should to a large extent be able to stand alone apart from the main text. I also agree that usage stats should be included, if available. Apart from that, a great article. JPD (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: This is something I wouldn't mind riding on one day, and Cheer Bear wouldn't miss it for Care-a-lot! (Sorry, my two cents for being so nostalgic and everything in that last part.) --Slgrandson 03:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support: I feel that there needs to be a map of the route taken. Otherwise good. Todd661 01:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)