Talk:Rochor MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Rochor station was my 'local' station when I last visited Singapore, having been completed since my first visit only a year before, so I'm interested to read this article. I have the following comments:

• Something has gone wrong with the currency template in the first paragraph of the 'Construction' section
  • Yeah I have noticed. I am unsure how to fix it. Maybe I will hide it, for now, until the template has been fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• "and targeted to be completed by 2015" - was a specific date in 2015 set as the target?
  • From the source announcement, there is no specific date, only the year.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The Ministry of Manpower has praised the construction project, explaining that it has managed to accomplished zero accidents " - did the Ministry or the companies involved achieve zero accidents?
  • The contractor. Added detail.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• " Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew announced that the DTL2 would be opened earlier,[7] with works completed by 95%" - this is unclear - earlier than what, and what does 95% mean here?
  • 95% of the works have been completed, I mean.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The station operates between 5:55 am and 12:24 am daily,[14] with headways of 2.75 to 4.5 minutes." - note when this is as of
  •  Done
• "to the education institution of LASALLE College of the Arts" - needs copy editing
  • Removed "education institution" since there is only one, and from the name it's pretty obv--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Is it all caps or sentence caps? The article uses both. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• From having stayed in this area, an interesting feature is that there seem to be an (un)usual number of stations nearby. For instance, Rochor station is only about a 10 minute walk to the next two stations on the line. Is there a reason this part of Singapore is so well served?
  • I can't really comment much on this. There aren't official sources stating why, but it has mentioned that the station density in the central area is getting denser. I wonder if it is constructive to add that the station is close enough to Jalan Besar for DTL passengers to transfer over. source--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Feng's book should be listed as a 'work consulted' or similarly, given that it's a major source for the article rather than 'further reading'
  • Can provide examples in other articles about this? So I change the header to "work consulted", or smth?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • See pretty much any high quality article. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• The article is all very positive about this station. Have there been any criticisms of it? Has patronage been what was expected?
  • Well, there arent really any official published sources on criticism of the station. I also would wish to give some balance, but there arent really any.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• Some images have problems:
  • I can't see the Creative Commons release on the source of File:DT13 Rochor MRT construction DSC 0011.jpg
  • Ditto File:DT13 Rochor MRT construction DSC 0011.jpg
    • Here it stated that the aerial construction photos are released under creative commons].--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
• All sources used look reliable and appropriate.
• Spot checks:
  • Reference 2: Checks out, but the wording is much too closely paraphrased (and is close to being a copy and paste)
  • "The Rochor Canal, originally located in the middle of Rochor Canal Road and Sungei Road, had to be shifted as it ran through the construction site" - reference 4 also checks out, but the wording is uncomfortably close to what the source says.
  • "The site has a layer of soft marine clay 30 metres (98 ft) thick[5] with the "consistency of peanut butter"." - ditto
  • "the station was intended to be a model of how modern transport infrastructure can be practical and aesthetically pleasing with the ability to fuse into the background" - checks out, but also closely paraphrased.
• As all four spot checks resulted in close paraphrasing, I'm leaning towards failing the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I am unsure on how to rephrase these, but I am seeking help. Will rephrase these soon.---ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to note, as all the spot checks are failed, I am expecting that you will review all the article's other text, and make other adjustments to avoid close paraphrasing given it's unlikely that the problems are restricted to some examples I picked at random. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial review so far. Will work on these outstanding issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Hello. Rephrased and reworded the article. What are your thoughts?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Further spot checks:

• "The artwork is intended to contrast and probe into the dual reflections of Singapore's youths: living through a world of technology while having sentimentality for tradition and history" - very lightly paraphrased from the source
• " The objects were then drawn in three ways: simple pencil drawing, mono-printing and modern digital drawing" - ditto

I'm failing this GAN as a result. This is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   All four spot initial checks returned close paraphrasing. Two further spot checks also had close paraphrasing.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

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:

   Two images may not be suitable for use

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Failing due to close paraphrasing concerns. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)