Talk:Serangoon MRT station

Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Serangoon MRT station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Will have a look at this one tonight or within the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Progress and general comments

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Nice article about a rapid transit station. I haven't been to Singapore, but will assume things are very similar to Hong Kong MTR and Taipei MRT that I have more experience with.

• Images are finely licensed (most are yours, good work) and relevant, but I'm wondering whether you could add one more to illustrate the "triangular-shaped and enclosed in cubic structures" thing, which I did not understand until I looked at something like File:NE12 CC13 Serangoon MRT Exit C 20210908 154533.jpg.
• Neutral and stable, passes copyvio check. References from reliable sources and sensibly formatted.
• Broadness: What I'm missing a bit is an indication how busy the station is (how many passengers?) and how this compares to other stations on the MRT system.

I'll go through section by section below and make detailed comments, mostly rather minor points. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead: alignment what was supposed to align with what?
  • The line alignment. Added "line".--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• The station's construction was confirmed in 1996; its construction try to remove the duplicate "construction" (once talking about the plan to do it, once talking about the way how it was done); the first time you really mean something like "It was confirmed in 1996 that the station would be built".
  • Removed first construction. Just that station was first announced.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• entrances, ... which are triangular-shaped and enclosed in cubic structures I tried to imagine this and couldn't. The picture shows an entrance that doesn't look triangle-shaped (you should choose "triangle-shaped" or "triangular") at all from this angle. Try to explain this better and add a picture in the relevant section in the body?
  • Added image as per earlier comment.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Good. But please choose "triangular" or "triangle-shaped" or "triangular in shape"; "triangular-shaped" is not correct.
• History: not financially viable I'd be happier if you could hedge this into "not considered financially viable" or something.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• You could (optionally, totally fine if you don't want to) link Wayss & Freytag or Wayss & Freytag AG.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• A few public facilities were taken over, and new carpark lots and a new basketball court were built as replacements. Were these different types of public facilities or also car parks and sports courts?
  • The source include car parks as an example of a public facility. So eh.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• The works also involved monitoring the residential buildings because of the proximity of the works to the surrounding structures. This ensured that the building's foundations were not affected I think you could tighten this a bit. ("Residential buildings nearby were monitored to ensure that the foundations were not affected" or something). In any case, decide whether "building" is singular or plural here.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• screenings machines deployed for the exercise include "screening machines ... included?" But it is possible that it is correct as you wrote it depending on what you mean.
  • Fixed. Exercise was over.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Such exercises were conducted ... Not sure this sentence adds very much information to what is already there.
  • Well, I just had to explain what the exercise purpose is about. If this needs to be rephrased, what do you suggest?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Except for "test response protocols", the rest reads like corporatespeak for "we tested the security system". But you can leave it.
• Station details: Again, the triangle encased in a cube is hard to imagine until you see the picture. Do you know who the architect/designer was who came up with this? Is this a unique feature of Serangoon or is this more common on the MRT?
  • A unique feature for the station.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok.
• Consider moving the paragraph about wheelchair accessibility before the one about the CD shelter.
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• Artwork: relieving to their children about the kampung days I don't understand what that means.
  • Fixed to be a bit clearer.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Much better.
• Link lalang to Imperata cylindrica (if that is the correct link).
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• View of Life: sorry, I don't understand where on the photograph we see this artwork.
  • On the glass panels left of the faregates. I can't do a direct shot of it since it's a 2D work and not covered under FoP.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • This would need a much better caption to explain to the reader; I still can't quite see what I am supposed to look for (I more or less assumed we were talking about the Chinese New Year decorated wall). Perhaps it is better to just remove the picture. Incidentally, you should link Sarkasi Said here and in the lead.
• Even if the original work was protected by the glass, the panels might still break. Not sure that this clarification of the concerns is necessary. In any case, remove "the" before "glass".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• The CCL platforms feature if it is all of them, perhaps strengthen "All of the CCL platforms feature". Otherwise, clarify how typical Serangoon is in this respect.
  • Added that only at Serangoon (and other interchange stations stated in footnotes.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• External links: SBS transit page gives me a "page not found".
  • Fixed. That was an old link.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
• "impressed" I don't understand why you use quotes here. If you do, it should be attributed in the text who said this.
  • Well, it was stated in the source I quoted...--ZKang123 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    • OK.
• Generally some of the artwork descriptions could be tightened a little.

I think that's everything. Nice work! I'll put this on hold but don't think it will take long to address my points. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• @ZKang123: There are still two points ("triangular-shaped" and the View of Life image issue) that I would like to see addressed before promotion. For the future (to get to "comprehensiveness" for FA), you should explain the importance of the station (passenger numbers) and discuss designers and architects if there is any information about them. —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Tried to condense the description further. Also dealt with the "traingular-shaped" in lead ZKang123 (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, the image in the View of Life section needs to go or have a significantly better caption that tells the reader that they can't see the artwork on the picture. Otherwise this is too confusing. (Probably best to link to the artist as I suggested above and to add a non-free image of their art to their page if it can be justified by the WP:NFCC). —Kusma (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Removed image. ZKang123 (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  OK, will do the paperwork now. Nice GA! —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)