Talk:Clementi MRT station/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Dream out loud (talk · contribs) 07:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Glad to see another rail transport article being nominated. Before I can do a full GA assessment, I'd like to share some feedback.
Infobox needs to be cleaned up a bit:
- "Taxi" connection is not relevant, I'm sure this applies to all stations
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Station has an elevated and underground section, yet infobox says only 1 platform level, and 1 island platform? (also "island platform" should not have a piped link)
- So far we are not totally sure of the CRL platform configuration.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Dates in history section should use {{Start date}}, not {{Start date and age}} (the latter is mostly for biography articles)
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Electrification parameter is for the date it was electrified if not at date of opening (not a "yes" or "no")
- Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Is there any ridership data available?
- No. Not as of recently.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Format of the article prose needs to be restructured a bit:
- "Details" section should be renamed to "Station details" and expanded a bit. It should include details such as the layout of the station, services available, ridership data, etc.
- "History" section should be split up. It currently contains construction history and a rail incident. The incident should be in its own section, seperate from the station's construction history.
As much as I will like to include more station details, they are pretty scant in official media and hence nothing more could be added. A GAN reviewer also once suggested to name the section "Details" rather than "Station details" since well, the article itself is about a station. Also, I think the history section as it is is already fine.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, images in the article are missing alt text.
- Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Status query
[edit]Dream out loud, ZKang123, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, nothing has been done for over a month and a half since ZKang123 posted here; Dream out loud, are you prepared to do the full GA assessment you mentioned? Thank you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I have not had much time to actively edit for the past month, so I cannot commit to proceeding with the full assessment right now. However, I will say that upon reading the article, it still needs work and I would not support a promotion yet.
- My major comments about reformatting the "Details" and "History" sections have not been properly addressed. The "History" section is way too long for an article about a subway station. It should just contain background information of historical signficance related to the station.
- Historical: Dates of planning, construction, opening, rail incident, etc.
- Not historical: Installation of new doors, fans, etc.
- Anything else about the station's infrastructure should be moved to the "Details" section (which itself needs to be renamed and expanded). –Dream out loud (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud, do you want to formally fail this article, on the grounds that your major comments have not been addressed? Right now @ZKang123 is stuck in limbo. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree with Dream out loud's assessment, since the upgrades would be relevant (like in Clark Street station), and would prefer a second opinion on this GAN.
- I also cannot simply expand the details section without having more available reliable sources at hand.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dream out loud, if you feel the article is inadequate, you should fail the nomination. Per WP:GAN/I#R2, "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner"; completion does not have to be a pass, but it should be within a reasonable amount of time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize again for not following up on this GA assessment in a timely manner. I have thorougly reviewed the GA criteria and decided to pass this article's nomination. Although the minor issues I mentioned were not addressed, I don't feel that any of it would disqualify the article from being promoted. Some improvements would definitely need to be made for an additional promotion to FA status, but for now I would be glad to see this article listed as a Good Article. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize again for not following up on this GA assessment in a timely manner. I have thorougly reviewed the GA criteria and decided to pass this article's nomination. Although the minor issues I mentioned were not addressed, I don't feel that any of it would disqualify the article from being promoted. Some improvements would definitely need to be made for an additional promotion to FA status, but for now I would be glad to see this article listed as a Good Article. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud, do you want to formally fail this article, on the grounds that your major comments have not been addressed? Right now @ZKang123 is stuck in limbo. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: