Talk:Springleaf MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 03:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I will review this. — The Most Comfortable Chair 03:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair Heyoo, are you gonna review this? ZKang123 (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay; I will complete the review by the end of this week. — The Most Comfortable Chair 06:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Most Comfortable Chair: have you gotten too comfortable in your chair? I can take over the review if you'd like :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming Mr Chair will come back to this but just a quick comment from me: you'd probably want to change some of the refs to show that the journo's last name is Toh, not Wei Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Life has been a little too much lately, but I sure do have my comfortable chair at the end of the day. You made my day with that, Kingoflettuce. :) — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead

• "Near the station Tagore MRT Station." — I am not sure I understand what this means.
  • Must be some foamer or vandal... Removed it since it's not yet in official records.

History

• It is somewhat moot to have "Thomson–East Coast line" as a sub-section header since it encompasses all of "History".
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Is it possible to link "bored tunnel" to an relevant article?
  • Linked to Tunnel boring machine.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Cranes and heavy machinery have to be carefully installed," → "Cranes and heavy machinery had to be carefully installed,"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The government agency gave regular updates on the construction works to residents and shopkeepers in the area." — I am not sure if this fact needs to be included in the article. Since that much would be expected with pretty much any major project, I see little encyclopediac value to it.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk)

Station details

• The header could just be "Details" since mentioning "Station" is a little redundant.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Thomson–East Coast line (TEL)" → "TEL" — Since it has already been abbreviated in the preceding section.
  • I thought it's better to abbreviate at every section. But fixed accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Being part of the TEL, the station is operated by SMRT Trains. Train frequencies on the TEL range from 5 to 9 minutes." — I would suggest you merge these sentence to avoid too many short sentences in one paragraph.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Since it is not mentioned elsewhere in the prose, it should be mentioned that Springleaf MRT station is a "Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station" in this section.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

• Use "publisher" instead of "website" for "LTA" and "Leighton Asia" throughout.
• Reference 1 and 2 — Should only have "Public Poll for Thomson Line Station Names" and "Thomson Line Station Names Finalised" in the title, respectively.
• About the point Kingoflettuce noticed — I am unfamiliar with naming traditions from this region. I found this article, which suggests his last name to be "Ting Wei" instead of "Wei". Thoughts, ZKang123?
  • Oh... Toh is his surname. Ting Wei is his name. A slight mistake in the citer generator... Other issues fixed as suggested.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That should do it. Thank you for your patience and I regret the delay. The article is concise and well-written. It should pass — The Most Comfortable Chair 08:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Final

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:

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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Succinct and concise, the article is referenced to reliable sources and illustrated appropriately. It meets the criteria. Thank you for your work. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)