Jump to content

Talk:Canberra MRT station/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See below.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Layout wise: this article has several short subsections that should be combined and reordered. Long term, the design section should be moved out of the history and made time-neutral. The Notable places section is completely unnecessary in its current form, which advertises two nearby developments but neglects to include information on the surrounding area as a whole.
     Done --Quek157 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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:
    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:
    Several citations include all-caps titles or other inconsistencies. Ref 24 has a bare URL in its title.
     removed Ref 24 was just a File that can be found in ref 23 so I removed. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig shows some similar sentences to a news article. The paraphrasing is far too close for my liking.
     paraphrased 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     paraphrased see [1], if Canberra station ,the station and between Sembawang and Yishun stations, are COPYVIO then I don't really know what to do already. Quek157 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Missing content in several places.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    See below.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    See below.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. 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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The prose and layout needs a lot of work, to say the least, and I don't think the authors should be nominating future GANs without going through peer review or an outside copyedit. I also think this nomination may be premature, especially since the opening is fairly soon in the future. SounderBruce 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Infobox
  • If there isn't information about the bicycle and disabled access, it should be omitted. Taxi connections are also unnecessary.
    •  Done the bycycle and ADA is confirmed, just that the infobox mentioned that it was under construction (which is true).
Lead* DoneQuek157 (talk) 14
54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Canberra MRT station (NS12) is a future elevated Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North South Line (NSL), and is located along Canberra Link in Sembawang, Singapore.
  • It will serve commuters living in the eastern part of Sembawang which include private developments (both landed property and condominiums) as well as numerous new and upcoming Housing and Development Board (HDB) public housing developments.
    • Serving "commuters" is a vague and the presence of private and public development goes without saying. Is this really important enough to be included in the lead?
  • The planning and design sections of the article should be represented in the lead.
History – Planning  Done Quek157 (talk) 11
28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
History – Design * DoneQuek157 (talk) 12
01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
History – Construction * Done --Quek157 (talk) 09
17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
History – Progress  Done --Quek157 (talk) 09
15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Progress section can become easily outdated. It should be merged back into the construction subsection and be prepared for post-opening prose.
  • "On 11 September 2017, the foundation works have been completed."
    • No need to be so specific with the date. The entire sentence is grammatically incorrect and should instead read "By September, work on the foundation had been completed" or something similar. Try to find out if the foundation had been merely placed or poured, which makes the transition to the next sentence easier.
  • "Therefore, construction of platform slabs started."
  • "On 19 February 2018, it was announced that as part of Singapore Budget for the Financial Year 2018 / 2019, around $46 million SGD will be used to procure additional trains for the station and it was revealed that the total project cost for the station (excluding the additional trains) is now at $228 million SGD."
    • Lots of figures that should not be tied to this specific date. Put the project budget at the beginning of the construction section, add train procurement to the fleet article instead, and don't use specific titles for generic documents like a budget.
      •  Done will like to emphasize that the 46 million is for the additional trains for this station to function and I feel it is relevant in both article (as stated in the budget statement - for Canberra Station), will lump together as project cost --Quek157 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notable places nearby * Done Quek157 (talk) 10
05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Missing content  Done except points really WP:CRYSTAL Quek157 (talk) 11
38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What kind of transit service is there to the Canberra Lane area today? How will the bus network change when the station opens?
    •  Done public buses routes added  Not done that's really WP:CRYSTAL. Sometimes when stations opens in SG, routes are cut (rationalization - NEL), sometimes more are added. Really I cannot agree crystal balling as in Singapore, the government will not mention anything before hand. Hope you understand Quek157 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a more specific date for the station's opening?

I'll give the nominators a few days to work on this, but even after all these comments there are still other issues to bring up. I suggest looking at existing GAs on future stations (of which I have written a few, like U District station) to learn the proper way of laying out a future-proof (or rather future-ready) article. SounderBruce 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

noiminator note
I will do the necessary edits asap. do pardon me for a little inaction. will do clean-up today. thanks for all the guidance. very useful --Quek157 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue soon --Quek157 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: what's happening now? According to the checklist everything has been resolved. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged him on his talkpage also not responding. Quek157 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote for @SounderBruce:, can we use skyscrapercity photos for wikipedia, I know you have a lot of photos there, and may know. The singapore version have good photos for this station also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the image must give proper permission and license the image under a free license (Creative Commons, public domain, GDFL, etc.). The most common way of getting people to donate their images is through OTRS on Commons, which requires validation, or by changing the licenses on Flickr.
I'll be posting the rest of my comments later in the week. There is no need to repeatedly ping me, since I have this page on my watchlist. SounderBruce 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, part 2

[edit]

While most of my points were addressed, the resulting article is still riddled with existing and new grammar issues. Some new passages are even unreferenced and read like a phoned-in school report rather than an encyclopedia entry. The point of a GA review is not to hand-hold editors until their article is up to an acceptable standard, but instead point out small mistakes that help put a final polish on the work; the number of issues listed in my above review was well above the minimum that other reviewers would use to quick-fail a nomination. In addition to the fundamental problems here, the article is likely to undergo massive changes when the station is opened, and I'm not confident it can retain GA status.

As such, I will be closing this review on criteria 1(a) and 1(b), as well as 3(b). I highly suggest that this article undergo a real copyedit from WP:GOCE or a real peer review before re-appearing at GAN. SounderBruce 00:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@1.02 editor and KN2731: How's your comment about this closure. I hope to hear from all of you before I comment --Quek157 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing most of what's happened over the past week due to exams. I've managed a brief glance over the changes over the article though, so here's my take. To some extent I agree with SounderBruce that part of the article read like a school essay, especially at the parts failing 3B: under the construction section where the direct relevance of the calls for safety by various figures to the article is questionable, as well as the description of the crossover track where I find too much elaboration on the rail disruption, which is not remotely related to the station itself. I also see some primary sources, which are usually not recommended to be used. On the brighter side the grammar issues are fixable and I can work on that as and when I'm available. I was working on ref style before I went off for exams and I can continue that too. Moving forward, I feel we should probably wait for the station to open next year; there's no rush to get this up to GA, and it will need a large rewrite when the station does open. In addition, at that time there will likely be a slew of news reports that may be used to source new information and better source existing information. Afterwards as SounderBruce suggested we can request for a peer review and/or a copyedit if one will still be necessary. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what happens after this I would still like to thank SounderBruce for his patience, and taking time off to give such detailed comments and recommendations. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i think we may have been a bit too optimistic when discussing this before, as with what SounderBruce said, the article does not meet 1a, 1b and 3b. Being a GA reviewer myself, i should have saw these problems beforehand and would like to sincerely apologise for overlooking this issues. moving on, i think that as what KN2731 said, we should send this to GOCE for someone to do up the article. I do understand different reviewers have different styles (with mine being one where i try to make every article i review pass, regardless the circumstances), and have no objections to this closure. I would like to thank SounderBruce for his time in reviewing the article as i understand that this article could have qualified for a quick fail, and my fellow nominators for their work on the article. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the follow up, i think we should only renominate in 2019, when the station opens for service. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator final comments

[edit]
@1.02 editor and KN2731: (I will not ping the reviewer since he had this on his talkpage).
  • Opening Comments. As per the co-nominators view, I agree this is too premature. I also echo my thanks to SounderBrunce who had taken time to painstakingly take this review to this depth. I also concur that 3(b) is not met. As per 1a/1b, I respectfully disagree. As GA criteria is not to have unblemished language, surely we can trash it out further here before the closing. I had also independently used spelling / grammar checkers available offline and there seems no major problems. I felt that some of the contents that Brunce asked us to add further conflicted the article and ultimately further decline the quality of the prose. However, since 3 (b) is not met, that's is a non issue. I will like to also thank Brunce for not immediately failing it as it will not serve justice for this article but with the Part 2 coming so late from Part 1, this cause some confusion as well as greater disharmony of the article. I also will like to state that for GA, failure should be expected and reviewers should not just pass any review without deep consideration. Hence, Brunce is correct in his approach and I thank him for it. We cannot pass an article "regardless the circumstances" as it will only open up to reassessments.
  • Points to take note of: Since 3(b) is not met, and by some extent, 1a/1b is not met, this article cannot even qualify for "B" class, however, "C" class is affirmed by this review. As I reviewed pictures of progress of this station, the current stage is just putting up the roof structure. The is a board outside the station which state that the completion is 30 Sept 2019. However, with testing issues and the rest, I don't expect the station to be up that soon. I will think there will be tethering problems as well as more reactions from the ground. I am afraid that such statements will not be that available as many of the MPs in Sembawang / residents normally comment on Facebook not on press. All these needs to be included into the article for a 3b to be met. More pictures will be appreciated also, and I will try to provide it. However, that being said, I feel this review is too rush in concurrence with the rest of the nominators. However, I will like to state that I rushed it as this is the only time this article can be stable enough. When opening, there will be a lot of things going on as ironic as it sounds. Unless much work is done then, I can only conclude this is WP:SNOW and WP:TOOSOON, understood broadly. I will think a copyedit / peer review is good but given the amount of information, and the lack of information at hand (which I trawled the whole internet - all languages in Singapore - and yet this is the only bits of information, most as primary sources - only reinforces the idea of WP:SNOW.
  • Concluding remarks: To my co-nominators, thank you for the hard work. To the review, thanks for the work. Though we fail, this is another learning occasion. Pardon me if this will sound rude, but I will think the motto for both my alma matter as well as 1.02 editor school will be a fitting closure: nothing without labour, the best is yet to be. --Quek157 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Quek157: I'll cut to the chase, I did not say I passed every nomination, I said "I try to make every article I review pass". 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@1.02 editor: I am not referring to you, I am just stating generally in context. Sorry if you do feel offended. --Quek157 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
its ok. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
with this till station opening we will then restart ga --Quek157 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canberra_MRT_station/GA1&oldid=953023682"