Talk:Stevens MRT station/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hello. I'll be reviewing this nomination. From a quick glance it appears to be in pretty good shape. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Issues resolved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
References format looks good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Sources are largely government publications or reliable news media. I do not see any sources that appear unreliable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Spotchecks did not show any issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
See [1]. There's a few phrases in the art section that are very closely paraphrased; these should either be made into quotations or rephrased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now resolved. This criterion is passed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
We have the station's construction, opening, and operations, plus some detail on its artwork and layout. All that one would expect a train station article to cover, especially for one opened within the past two decades. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Everything is relevant to the topic, and the article is concise, avoiding excessive detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I do not see any indications of bias in the prose or in the article's weight to each aspect. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Stable edit history, apart from one instance of someone adding uncited material and being reverted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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:
All images are appropriately licensed, either uploaded directly by contributors to Commons, or uploaded from a blog which has stated images are licensed there under a compatible Creative Commons license. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images could use alt text, but otherwise are good. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Article passes. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Lead

Suggest mentioning the station is in Singapore in the first sentence of the lead.
it serves the nearby Singapore Chinese Girls' School and St. Joseph's Institution schools the "schools" can be removed, since the first example already mentions it's a school and the sentence is a bit awkward with school repeated.
In August 2012, the station was announced to interchange with the TEL. This needs a rewrite. I suggest "In August 2012, it was announced that the station would include an interchange with the planned Thompson-East Coast Line".
Link Shubigi Rao.

Body

After a public poll in 2009, the station kept its working name as "Stevens". Change to "working name of "Stevens".
Contract 919 for the design and construction of Stevens station and associated tunnels I recommend removing the contract number. It isn't relevant anywhere else, and kind of shows up without context. Just say "The contract for the design and construction of Stevens station and associated tunnels..."
The contract also includes the construction of the adjacent Botanic Gardens station Change to included, as this is past tense.
Stevens station was first announced to interchange with the 22-station Thomson line (TSL) on 29 August 2012 As I said earlier, this should be reworded to be clearer and easier to understand.
Same thing with the contract numbers - it doesn't add anything and is more likely to confuse the reader.
Link S. Iswaran.
Stevens is one of the smallest MRT stations on the DTL due to its location near the Wayang Satu Flyover and the Bukit Timah Canal This is repeating the information from the previous paragraph. This should be consolidated to just say "Due to the nearby flyover and canal, Stevens is one of the smallest MRT stations on the DTL".
A 24-metre (79 ft) mosaic 24 meters in what dimension? Height? Width?
Like in the lead, link Shubigi Rao. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments above ZKang123 (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be busy most of today, but noting I've seen this and will continue the review as soon as I have time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Ref 18: Checks out. Source confirms the cited claim that construction began in January 2021.
Ref 13: Dead link, but archived. Citation should be modified to indicate the source link is dead. Otherwise everything is good here.
Ref 29: Good, confirms train frequencies in the article.
Ref 38: Good, confirms detail on the art installation, and how it reflects the plantations in the area in the 19th century.

As we only have a very minor issue, which I have taken the liberty of fixing myself, I'm going to call these spotchecks passed successfully. I'm going to pass the nomination now, thanks for your work on it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.