Talk:Nicoll Highway MRT station/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: KN2731 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look tomorrow. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Fixed a couple of typos and changed some wording here and there.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead looks a little short. Perhaps add a little more detail regarding the aftermath of the collapse? I would also mention Singapore somewhere in the first sentence to give the reader more context – maybe something like Nicoll Highway MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the Circle line (CCL) in Singapore (italics mine).
The lead has been expanded as per your request.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
|website=www.lta.gov.sg should be changed to |publisher=Land Transport Authority. Similarly for Ministry of Transport, Nishimatsu Construction, Lum Chang, Ong&Ong, SMRT Journeys as these are all self-published sources; see Help:Citation Style 1#Work and publisher for more info. Apart from that, FN36 should have |work=Channel NewsAsia, FN4 and FN30 need to be consistent (The Business Times or just Business Times?), FN25 is missing a work/publisher, and FN22 is missing a date.
Fixed the references and removed references to the contractors. Eh, the Ministry of Transport is an actual Ministry which I find to be reliable and not a self-published source? Same goes for Land Transport Authority (LTA). I used Ong&Ong for the design source as there isn't any other commentary by anyone else, plus a reference to the SMRT for the First and Last trains, since the SMRT is more accurate and updated on this than the LTA.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I thought the website names should be italicised as what reviewers have said for other GARs?--ZKang123 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on their reliability here – just the citation style (which is honestly more of a nitpick than anything). I've gone and fixed it anyway so it should be fine. From my understanding of CS1, sources that have an obvious publishing company/organisation (e.g. LTA, MOT) should be listed under the "publisher" parameter, while the "website" or "work" parameter is used for newspapers/online news and the like. At least, that's the pattern I've been following at FAC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Extensive use of primary sources in the "Design" section. Consider that some info could be just removed instead of sourced to Ong&Ong directly, since things like "creates a 'neutral space' for commuters", '"clean modern" environment', and 'representation of the "technological sophistication"' amount to corporate fluff and doesn't really add to the reader's visualisation of the station.
It would be better to find a news article to replace FN7 and 8; alternatively the contract number can just be removed entirely since it's not a very important piece of information.
Such fluff has been removed. The LTA news release of the contract awarding is used as the news article; I have been unable to find an actual news article on it.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
None as far as I can tell.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Significant close paraphrasing in the "Design" and "Station artwork" sections. Source material should be summarised and corporate fluff/excessive detail eliminated. Things like "the artist intends to show that anything is valuable as long as one takes a closer look" are phrased almost identically to the source and need to be reworded. I can't view the 2013 book by Justin Zhuang, but I hope there aren't more instances where the wording is too similar to the source to be safe.
Rephrasing done with help of other editors.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The station artwork is much longer than it needs to be. Is it necessary to detail the intricacies of the entire production of the artwork? The third paragraph in particular contains a lot of non-notable info that doesn't mean much without further explanation (e.g. "Khiew worked closely with the production team and ensured minimal impact on the artwork during the process", "While there were many changes made during the process, Khiew insisted on keeping the artistic shapes of the work") and can be omitted entirely.
Summarised the artwork section.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I found the section on station collapse quite well-written.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The external image of the collapse site says "Source: Today", but it links to an image hosted by Mothership?
Well, the picture is actually originally from Today but mothership uses it. The original source is offline.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The main issues are with the "Design" and "Station artwork" sections. Consider that if so much information can only be sourced to primary sources, some of it may not be suitable for inclusion in the first place. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, passing. Nice work. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]