Talk:Great World MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: HoHo3143 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I will be the reviewer for this article. Once I have made a recommendation, please respond with {tick|20} (Y) and a comment to signify that you have made this change, or {bang|20} ( ) to signify a comment or remark. I will aim to complete the review quickly, and, if it hasn't been done automatically, I ask you to subscribe to this page so you receive notifications when a new comment is posted (I have also done the same). Once I have completed the review, to pay back the work that I have done, I'd request that you complete a review of one of my GANs (if you complete one of mine I can do another of yours (keep continuing)). This could be one of the following articles:

• Caulfield railway station
• Malvern railway station
• Armadale railway station
• Toorak railway station
• Hawksburn railway station
• Darling railway station
• East Malvern railway station
• Gardiner railway station
• Glen Iris railway station

Thank you, and I look forward to completing this review. HoHo3143 (talk) 3:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• Images should have ALT text. HoHo3143 (talk) 3:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• You should add more images to the history and description sections. It would "fill up" the article a bit more. HoHo3143 (talk) 3:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Done. Added images ZKang123 (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the description area is a bit short. Some of the other MRT station articles that you have successfully nominated have more information on the design of the station. This is also the same for the lead section. I'd like to see both of these sections expanded please. HoHo3143 (talk) 3:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Not all the time does every station have proper documentation of the designs of stations... The LTA (our transport agency) is pretty tight-lipped about this... ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's fair- I would like to see further expansion on the lead section. HoHo3143 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Expanded a little more. ZKang123 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Final comments

• Whilst the description section is a bit short, I understand why information is limited. The history section is a good length and contains a good amount of interesting, important information. I'll be passing the article shortly. Once I have passed the article, I'd request that you repay the favour by reviewing one of my GAN listed above. HoHo3143 (talk) 4:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• I have now passed the article—congratulations! Now that I have passed the article, I'd request that you repay the favour by reviewing one of my GAN listed above. HoHo3143 (talk) 4:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)