Talk:Cross Island MRT line/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited a bit; please revert if you disagree with any of my edits.

File:Cross Island Line final and alternate routes across Central Catchment.png and File:MRT Route Map CR.svg are unsourced.
These are still unsourced. One has no source given; the other does not support the positioning of the line on the map, only the sequence and orientation of the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~"CRL1" is used but not defined; presumably it means the first phase, but that should be clearer.~~
~~"EIA" is never defined.~~
~~"Engineering studies for the new phases have not yet been completed at this stage": "at this stage" is meaningless; we need an "as of" date.~~
"Transport Minister Khaw announced in 2018 that express services were considered not feasible, citing the need to dedicate more infrastructure for extra tracks and additional signalling systems": do you mean that it wasn't considered feasible because it would have required more infrastructure, or because the LTA needed to dedicate more infrastructure to extra tracks for other lines?
This has not been changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is material in the lead that is not in the body; everything in the lead should also be in the body, per WP:LEAD. (This is why there's no need for citations in the lead in most cases -- it's not wrong to have citations in the lead, but many editors don't cite the lead as it's optional. Up to you; the article can pass GA with citations in the lead.) For example, "Coloured lime on official maps" is not in the body, "58-kilometre" is in the lead but not the body (though it is in the infobox so that's probably OK), and "automated" is only in the lead.
This is still an issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fix the issue? Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 23:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does it mean to say that "CR1" is being reserved for the station at Changi terminal 5?~~

Spotchecks:

FN 29 cites "The map also showed the western segment interchanging with existing and under-construction stations including King Albert Park, Clementi and Jurong Pier. The line was shown to terminate at Gul Circle station. The map, along with the virtual exhibition, has since been offline. The LTA explained that the route was a "conceptual alignment" yet to be finalised, with the interchange stations being tentative." Suggest changing "stations including King Albert Park, ..." to "stations: King Albert Park, ..." and add Gul Circle; it's not wrong as you have it but there seems no reason not to mention all four as the source does. I don't see support in the source for the "conceptual alignment" quote.
The "including" has been removed, but to make that work you have to add Gul Circle. The "conceptual alignment" quote still appears to be unsupported. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the “conceptual alignment” quote and added Gul Circle Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 5 cites "The proposed full line is expected to have a daily ridership of over one million in the long term". Verified.
FN 33 cites "The Phase 3 segment is predicted to have five stations, with tentative stations CR21 and CR24 on the Phase 3 segment interchanging with the Jurong Region line and the East West line. An additional shell station might be built as part of the segment. Engineering studies for the new phases have not yet been completed at this stage." I don't have access to this source; can you cite the supporting text? Incidentally, though it's not a GA issue, you might not be aware that archive links for paid sites often don't work -- the archive link for this one doesn't work for example. You might as well remove archive links that have no content.
To verify this I need you to post here the text in the source that supports this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 12 cites "a northern route that would run close to the Thomson–East Coast Line, heading west towards Mandai, Sungei Kadut and Gali Batu before terminating at Choa Chu Kang, and a southern route skirting the reserve along Lornie Road. Engineers noted the feasibility of constructing the line through the reserve without impacting the environment, though one said the decision "shouldn’t be just based on transport"." The quote is from Lee Der-Horng, who is better described as an engineering professor rather than as an engineer. The description of the route needs a separate source; this source only covers the response, as far as I can see. And I don't see support for "noted the feasibility of" -- what Leung Chun Fai said is that it might be possible, not that it was possible.
You have "engineering professors", which is wrong; only one said it. I would give each quoted person's name as well, to avoid having to describe both people with the same description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 25 cites "However, the restrictions imposed on construction works due to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays and the completion dates for CRL1 and CRLe were pushed by one year to 2030 and 2032 respectively." Verified.
FNs 2 & 21 cite "An extension towards Changi Airport Terminal 5 is considered, with " CR1 " being reserved for the station." I have a query above about what this means. Looking at the sources I see "The line may be extended to link up with Changi Airport" but nothing about Terminal 5 or the name of the station.
You've removed the mention of CR1 but have not addressed the other question; there's nothing I can see in the sources about Terminal 5. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned about the number of failed verifications in the spotcheck; three of the six statements I checked don't seem fully supported. Once these are corrected I will check some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brachy0008, are you planning to work on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just forgot. Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 02:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, are you still there? Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 05:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- let me know when you've fixed the issues above and I'll check your fixes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issues above already Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 23:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed more issues Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 06:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brachy0008, I'm a bit baffled by your responses. Are you interested in working on the remaining issues? The last two edits you made changed "Engineering professors" to "Engineering professor Lee Der-Horng", which is OK in itself but leaves the rest of the sentence in a mess since "one said" now has no referent; and removed the mention of the extension which seems odd given that the source does support it. There are several other unfixed problems above. Are you planning to fix them? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying my best to fix them Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 23:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine then. Let me know if you need further explanations on any of the points I raised. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need, have you checked the issues yet? Because I might have deleted some issues and fix some others. Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 04:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take another look through, probably tonight. Most nominators either reply at the end of the list to say everything is resolved, so the reviewer knows they need to go and recheck everything; or else they reply after each point, saying it's resolved or if there are questions. That way the nominator knows what to check. For a short list of problems like this I have no problem rechecking everything, but if you nominate more articles it's a good idea to respond that way as it makes it easy for your reviewer to figure out what's been deal with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

Since it's not clear what's been fixed and what hasn't, I'll repost below anything that I think is still an issue. Could you respond below each point you've fixed so I know when to take another look? Or if you've fixed everything just let me know that.

"However, Transport Minister Khaw announced in 2018 that express services were considered not feasible, citing the higher cost needed to build extra tracks and additional signalling systems that can affect non-express commuters and existing lines." This has been changed but I don't understand what the new phrase is supposed to mean. Can you clarify?
File:Cross Island Line final and alternate routes across Central Catchment.png -- one source given is this; I think the pink and blue lines are supposed to be the alternate and final routes, but that source doesn't say that. The other source doesn't appear to be relevant.
File:MRT Route Map CR.svg is sourced to this but has a lot of details not on that map.
~~"It will be the sixth MRT line to be completely automated and driverless, as well as the fourth high capacity MRT line." This is unsourced.~~
~~Most of the first paragraph under "Route" is unsourced.~~
Please check the lead again to make sure that everything in the lead is in the body. The word "lime" to describe the colour that will be used is still only in the lead, for example. I haven't checked everything in the lead; please let me know when you're sure it's all in the body and I'll check again.
I see you've cited everything in the lead; that's fine, but just FYI, there's no requirement to do that. The requirement is that if you say something in the lead, the same information must be in the body. That's why leads don't need to be cited because there has to be a citation in the body. Looking through the lead, I see "Nevertheless, the Government ultimately decided after years of assessments and deliberation to continue with the original direct route in 2019, citing commuting time and economic factors as well as long-term energy consumption." I don't see support for the second half of this in the body. In the body it just says that the direct route was chosen and lists mitigating factors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two edits you made changed "Engineering professors" to "Engineering professor Lee Der-Horng", which is OK in itself but leaves the rest of the sentence in a mess since "one said" now has no referent; and removed the mention of the extension which seems odd given that the source does support it.
FN 33 cites "The Phase 3 segment is predicted to have five stations, with tentative stations CR21 and CR24 on the Phase 3 segment interchanging with the Jurong Region line and the East West line. An additional shell station might be built as part of the segment. Engineering studies for the new phases have not yet been completed at this stage." I don't have access to this source; can you cite the supporting text? Incidentally, though it's not a GA issue, you might not be aware that archive links for paid sites often don't work -- the archive link for this one doesn't work for example. You might as well remove archive links that have no content.
See below for a revised version of this question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When these are fixed I will read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting FN 33: "Phase three will be about 13km long and consists of at least four stations between Jurong and Tuas, of which two will be interchanges. An integrated train and bus depot in Tuas will be built. There are provisions for a fifth MRT station along this stretch, although this may be a shell structure... One of the proposed interchanges for phase three, labelled CR21... is expected to connect with the upcoming Jurong Region Line (JRL), the other proposed interchagned, labelled CR23, is slated to link up with the East-West Line (EWL and appears to be the western terminus... The map, which was later taken down, showed "conceptual alignments" for the two phases" Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 06:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to support the "Engineering studies..." sentence, and I think the wording in the article doesn't make it clear that the plan is for four or five stations -- the article says there will be five and then mentions an additional one without making it clear this is one of the five. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Engineering studies FN isn’t 33. Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 00:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify the changed statement. I meant that the express services are costly and can affect non-express services and other lines. Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 01:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is relevance to the image. There should be a section that says “Alignment Options for CRL”. Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 01:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike

?

Brachy08 (Never Gonna Give You Up, Never Gonna Let You Down) 01:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- sorry, it's been a very busy few days and I've only had the odd moment for Wikipedia. I will definitely have more time on Thursday, but I hope to get to this before then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 03:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Notice anything about my signatures? Brachy08 (Let’s Have A Kiki, I Wanna Have a Kiki) 10:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re FN 33: that comment dates back to this version, in which FN 33 covers the "Engineering studies..." sentence too. Looking at the text now, it's divided into three sentences, each separately cited; what used to be FN 33 is now FN 36 and FN 38. Footnote numbers below refer to this version (the current version):

FN 37 cites "It is projected that the second and third phases will be about 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) and 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) long respectively." I can see enough of this for Google to translate "As for the second phase of the project, based on the total length of the cross-island line of 56 kilometers, this phase is expected to be about 14 kilometers long", which supports the second phase. It looks like you're determining the length of the third phase by subtracting 29 and 14 from 56; is that correct? Normally I think that would be OK, but I also see "For the next two phases of the route, the Land Transport Bureau did not disclose the total length of the cross-island line when it was inquired. It only said that the second and third phases of the route have not yet been finalized, and the location of the subway station can only be determined after an in-depth engineering study is completed." This appears to say that the total length is uncertain. This (the old FN 33) which you quoted above supports the 13 km length so I would suggest adding that as a supporting citation.
FN 38 cites "The Phase 3 segment is predicted to have four stations, with tentative stations CR21 and CR23 on the Phase 3 segment interchanging with the Jurong Region line and the East West line." Verified per the quote you give above.
FNs 36 & 39 cite "An additional shell station might be built as part of the segment. As of 20 February 2022, engineering studies for Phase 3 have not yet been completed." The "as of" date should be September 2022; the date of the news release.

I've struck the points above in this section that are dealt with; the unstruck ones are still issues. I will do some more spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks; footnote numbers refer to this version:

FN 3 cites: "At least half of the CRL stations are to interchange with existing lines, providing alternative routes for commuters." The source says "almost half", not at least half.
FN 27 cites "However, the restrictions imposed on construction works due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to delays and the completion dates for CRL1 and CRLe were pushed by one year to 2030 and 2032 respectively." You don't explain what CRLe is (it appears to be the Punggol extension). The source says construction has been delayed by "up to a year", so I don't think we can say the dates were pushed by "one year" -- it could have been less than a full year, since Ong Ye Kung's answers apply to three different lines. I think the simplest answer would be to change the sentence to "pushed to 2030 and 2032 respectively". That's the same phrase used in the source, but I think that's OK.
FN 35 cites: "Based on tender documents, The Straits Times projected in February 2022 that civil works for the CRL might be completed by end-2033, with operations beginning in 2034 or later. The CRL is to be completed in three phases." The source is the LTA, not The Straits Times. I don't see a February 2022 date in the source either, and the content doesn't support the sentence.

I'm going to stop there and fail the article, mostly because of these spotchecks, though there are still other unfixed issues listed above. The spotcheck has to be passed for a GA to be promoted, and of the three I checked, one is completely unsupported, and the other two have errors, though not as serious. Before you nominate this again, please go through each sentence and make sure that everything is fully supported. You might want to enlist the help of another editor familiar with Singapore MRT articles, such as ZKang123. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what I didnt even nominate this article nor even wanted to put this to GA. This article is far from ready, even the line in question is still under construction and information is subject to massive changes. ZKang123 (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]