Talk:Stadium MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.

• Previous GA Review by abuse sock account deleted. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Lead

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Lead is concise and gives explanation for construction of new station.

History

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This section unfolds the need for the station and its incorporation into CCL and the opening of operations in 2010.

Architecture

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This section explains the design and its transformation after rejection of initial design, and rejection of the proposed bridge. The connection to the National Stadium is given, along with the Singapore Sports Hub. The Architectural awards won by this work are given.

Artwork

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This is well written, well researched and *very* well illustrated section.

Services and Location

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Fine.

Notes and References

Notes

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Checked; OK

References

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• References checked. Appropriate! Archived links are well resourced.

 

---

End Matter

Is it is Broad in its coverage?

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Yes, it is a good overview of an SMRT railway station constructed to serve the Singapore Sports Hub and well referenced. Link to Wikimedia Commons resources on the station are also given.

Further Reading

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted. An appropriate link to the photographer.

External Links

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted.

More End Matter Stuff:

1. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

• Yes, the article is neutral.

1. Is it stable?

• This article has had 282 edits since 2005, which picks up the station itself during the construction period. There is no evidence of edit warring and the article is considered stable.

1. Top editors are

   * ZKang123  
   * 115.66.22.96  
   * Sni56996  
   * Oahiyeel  

1. It is illustrated by images ?

• Very well illustrated; the link to the external image is excellent work.

Overall

Good work.

Conclusion

 Passed