Talk:Shenton Way MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 04:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. Please provide 2-3 days in order to read through.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"constructed as part of TEL3" - I get what this means, but is there a long form? Such as "TEL Phase 3", or something? TEL3 could mean phase 3, or maybe Singapore has 3 separate eastwards line that are all named TEL.

"Shenton Way station serves the TEL" - this feels off. The station, I assume, serves the surrounding areas and is served by the train service (TEL), but I wouldn't word it as is.

"Shenton Way station features two artworks" - in lead and in the body, I feel like this should be somewhat reworded. This implies that it features just two artworks - but for all we know, it has more that simply have not been added. You can say "station features the artworks Stride [...] and Everyday [...]", for example.

Not a hard-written requirement, but to reduce monotony, you think you can substitute "the station" here and there with something else? ("It" and "Shenton Way station" comes to mind)

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
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:
Please be consistent on whether you use a linked, full name of the publisher (Land Transport Authority, Singapore Land Authority) or an abbreviated/raw unlinked one (LTA, CNA, mot.gov.sg) in your references.

Also probably classify the publisher= and work= value a bit separately. I wouldn't say the Singapore Land Authority is a news outlet.

Citations no 3, 4, and 8 can probably get their titles cleaned up

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:
Earwig flagged several long-ish phrases and half-sentences, but I do not believe there is much merit in changing them.
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I will be impressed if an article about a transit station can be non-neutral, but anyways, no POV.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Everything CC-BY-SA, and Singapore has FoP for buildings.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall: @ZKang123: First pass review complete. Have a look. Juxlos (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On your corrections, there are only two forms of public artwork in the station. Rectified others. ZKang123 (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again regarding the references. The same issues are still there.

On the public artworks, is there a better way to word it? Even at least adding "public" there would help. I would even argue putting the "two artworks" is not necessary - just directly go to naming the artworks one at a time. Juxlos (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright did so. Overlooked the comment on citations. My apologies ZKang123 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Juxlos (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]