Talk:Bishan MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review. At first note, why is the Cultural impact section part of the Station details section? Also noting the three notes are unsourced. CMD (talk) 12:01, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I usually structure station articles like this: History and station details, and usually chuck whatever is relevant about the station under the latter section. Also, must we also cite stuff in the notes? Also awaiting full review. Thank you.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That simple a structure seems unsuitable. The FAs in Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations#Featured content show a great deal of diversity. All content should be cited. CMD (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

The sentence on the proposal should also note the line-name, rather than leaving it only in the section title.
The url for the Where the 14'... source is wrong, it should be [1], and the archive-url needs to be fixed too.
The sentence starting "In January 1986..." should note explicitly that this includes Bishan.
Both line subheaders could use a See also template to the article on the relevant line.
The ChannelnewsAsia links seem dead, if so they should be marked as such.
The incidents and accidents sections needs extensive copywriting, it is far too close to the source.

Station design

"the station is located in Bishan" The text should explain what Bishan is for an international audience.
"The NSL station is the only ground-level MRT station on the network." Is this true for the whole current network, or just the initial network?
The second paragraph of Design perhaps should be reworked to better attribute the quite specific opinions, such as "giving balance to the roof", much like the first paragraph directly attributes some quotes.
The paragraphs on 'Move! are also long and cover much detail that seem like they would be better attributed as quoted opinion.
The Singapore Built & Unbuilt source doesn't seem to work either live or archived.
"unlike the ordinary solid and stone seats", what's a "solid" seat?

Cultural impact

As mentioned above this doesn't seem to fit within a "Station details" section. It should also be mentioned in the lead.

"Interviewing the MRTC, the operator has said the operations and their staff have not been impacted by any alleged "sightings", although it confirmed the station was at the site of the former cemetery". Who is "the operator", who is "it"?
Not clear from the text why the driver seeing 50 people would cause the train to bypass the station.
The third paragraph here seems a rewording of information in the previous two paragraphs. It should be merged in.

Article is stable and neutral, images are licenced. CMD (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed aforementioned issues with rephrasing of certain sections (also updated more details in relation to the incident). And yes, Bishan is the only ground-level station in the whole network so far (many are underground or aboveground only)--ZKang123 (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit is appreciated, the issues appear resolved, I am happy to pass this now. CMD (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]