Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buangkok MRT station/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2024 [1].

---

Buangkok MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

So this is another MRT article! But what's more interesting here is that the station was closed for a while even when the line was opened (20 June 2003). The announcement to close the station was rather last minute and hence led to some discontentment among the few residents living in the area. There was some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts when a minister visited the area. While the station was projected to open only in 2008 in tandem with housing developments, the government eventually relented and the station opened in January 2006. A curious little drama for the "white elephant" station. ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Limited comments by Nick-D

The material on the protests stands out for me, as it seems a bit under-developed. I have some comments:

• The police response seems absurdly heavy handed. Google Scholar returns some references which seem to discuss this, including as an example of the limited opportunities Singaporeans have to protest
• This scholarly book has some good discussion of the incident, noting that it was an example of the problems the Singapore government was experiencing at the time in terms of building the train line and (more significantly) responding to public concerns.
• This academic article is also worth consulting and discusses the over-reaction to the protest. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting. Though the PAP book essentially covers what I managed to find (given it's published by SPH Holdings, which definitely would have access to the news articles I've cited about the incident). I try not to detract too much focus from the station subject, and commentary of the protests in nature is something that can be explored in another potential article (White Elephant saga, perhaps, as the PAP book calls it.) There's actually further context from another source (p56) on how the slump in housing development of the Singapore northeast was due to the 1997 financial crisis.

Just keeping an archive of a cited source from the 2nd journal page here. Not sure how to incorporate it, given the editor isn't really an authority on what determines a national political issue or not. I added a citation of what Chua Beng Huat remarked about the paranoia.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

750h

Will review. 750h+ 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

lead

• Located underneath Sengkang Central near the junction add a comma before "near"
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
• The station will also serve Sengkang Grand Residencies – an upcoming integrated development, and a future bus interchange. remove the comma
  • I've used a slightly different rewording.
• Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter, and the two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets.. Id split these two sentences, like something like "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter. The two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets."
  • Done. Though the problem is that the lead seems a little choppy here.

history

• The North East Line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996. ==> "The North East Line (NEL) project, first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996."
  • I think I prefer to retain "which was"
• for redevelopment into an important new town. ==> "for redevelopment into a new town."
  • Done.
• Just days before the opening of the NEL, on 17 June 2003, operator ==> "On 17 June 2003, just days before the opening of the NEL, operator"
  • I've used a slightly different rewording.
• along with the other stations, due to the lack remove the comma
  • Done.
• open the following January, after SBS Transit remove the comma
  • Done.
• required for them to sell the shirts, while also warning the organisers remove the comma
  • I think a comma here is necessary given the clauses are rather long.
• still traveled to the adjacent change "traveled" to "travelled", as in Singaporean English (i think)
  • Fixed.

details

• The station is designed by Altoon + Porter Architects and 3HP Architects. change "is" to "was"; unless they're still designing the station
  • Fixed.

artwork

• Leow drew parallels to the little dots and pixels of TV and computer images which blur out certain images add a comma before "which"
  • Fixed.

That's all I got, nice work. 750h+ 13:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Did the fixes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Support. I have an FAC open if you'd like to take a look (don't feel obliged though)! 750h+ 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Brief comments by CMD

• "Dissatisfaction with the station's continued closure had increased after the announcement of transport fare hikes." I don't fully understand the link, the source implies it is due to having to pay more and not getting a better service?
  • Yeah something like that.
• The dates on White elephant incidents and station opening are slightly unclear, after mentioning "27 July 2005". After that no years are mentioned until "pushed to 2008".
  • They are all in the same year. I clarified it was Yeo who said in September that the opening date was pushed further.
• No history after the opening? Did ridership eventually increase?
  • Unfortunately no. But I shall dig up the latest ridership numbers.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Best, CMD (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Vacant0

Will leave comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• "in the Singapore notheast area" → "in the northeastern Singapore area".
• "of 5,000 for the station to be" → "of 5,000 for it to be"
• "commented by" → "commented on by"
• I actually do not really have anything to add besides these minor changes. The article is well-written and researched and I do not see any issues with referencing. Support from me. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Did some of the above changes. Thanks for the review!--ZKang123 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Will look within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead feels a little skinny for an FA, even a relatively short one
  • Expanded the lead.
• Agree with Mike's comments re Sengkang Central, which I also took to be a neighborhood rather than a road
  • Added "road of"
• Is Buangkok a town, or a neighborhood? Our article says neighbourhood
  • Neighbourhood. Well, there's a bit of ambiguity between these distinctions, but I think it's still part of Sengkang town.
• "will also serve as a future bus interchange" - future is redundant, as "will serve" tells us this will happen in the future
  • Fixed.
• "The station will also serve as...Sengkang Grand Residencies, an upcoming integrated development." The station is going to be a residential building? Please clarify
  • Typo. Removed "as"
    • The phrasing in this sentence is still awkward. "It is also planned to serve a future bus interchange and Sengkang Grand Residencies..." As I said further down, the lead implies that serving Sengkang Grand is a future plan, but the body says that it already serves this complex. The phrasing in the body is better and would work fine in the lead.
• "First announced in March 1996 and beginning construction in April 1997," - tenses are wonky here. The station didn't begin construction, construction began on the station
  • Fixed.
    • No, you didn't. "Buangkok station began construction". Again, the station didn't begin anything, it's a metro station. Construction began on the station, or construction of the station began.
• "including a white elephant protest incident in 2005" this is definitely unclear without context
  • Lead has been expanded with context.
• grassroots in the sense of "grassroots movement" or "grassroots leader" is always plural, not singular

History first half

• "The station was constructed in a forested area that was proposed for redevelopment into a new town." - one of New towns of Singapore these?
  • I suppose
• Do we know why the land was given to the NEL project instead of being made into a town?
  • Well, in Singapore, we have to build transport access to a new town. So from my understanding, this station will serve this future new town.
    • That's not necessarily clear from context. The text currently says that the forest area was supposed to be a new town, and then it was used for a transit station. On the face of things, that reads as a change of plans. If you want to say that the station was meant to serve the town, say that.
• "the vacated warehouses demolished" what warehouses? This was a forested area, you said
  • The source didn't state very clearly where were these warehouses. Well, they said "Around the site of Buangkok station".
    • This is still awkward. What are warehouses doing in a forested area? "Undeveloped" might be a better word, as it doesn't imply a literal dense covering of trees.
    • Apologies for not spelling this out explicitly earlier, but in English, when you say "the X", it implies that there's a specific instance of X that you're talking about. So when you say "the warehouses" here without any further context, it implies that the reader should be aware of them. Except this is the first time they're mentioned, so this is confusing - the reader goes "what warehouses?" This writing guide from Yale helps explain it.
• " the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods." is redundant to "The site was excavated to a depth of up to 20 m...work on the station then proceeded from the bottom up."
  • Fixed.
• " Following the station's construction, roads were built to connect the station with existing roads." This sentence awkwardly uses "the station" and "roads" twice. How about something like "Once construction was complete, new roadwork connected the station to the road system"?
  • Fixed.
• "two stations on the line – Woodleigh and Buangkok – would not open " - but they were completed?
  • Well, mothball stations. So like the abandoned stations on the London Underground and the New York City Subway.
    • This is still not clear from the context.
• "sudden decision to close Buangkok station" can you close something that never opened?
  • Reword to "keep Buangkok station closed"
• "grassroots leaders" this is a bit wooly. Who?
  • Basically community leaders
    • Maybe you should link to something like People's_Association#Grassroots organisations to make it clear that "grassroots organisation" and "grassroots leader" is a specific term of art in Singapore, because in other countries it's usually an informal label that's applied to something from the outside
• Charles Chong - I assume his constituency area covers Buangkok, but this isn't clear from its name or general context
  • Yes, it covers Buangkok
    • This is still not clear from the context.
• Agree with Mike's comments re: distance stuff.
• Suggest linking Sengkang and Hougang stations in the text, yes they're in the infobox but the infobox isn't the body
  • Ah yes. Wikilinked Sengkang station in earlier instance and also for Hougang.
• "announcement of the station's closure" again, can you close something you never opened?
  • Fixed.
• "In response to residents' plans to gift a white elephant statue to the operator" it's the first time any such plan has been mentioned. in fact, it's the first in-body reference to the station as a white elephant. going straight into a response to a plan and nickname we didn't know existed two seconds ago feels odd. back up and explain the white elephant thing first (and actually, if his comments happened in august, which the date on the source seems to indicate, why are they being placed chronologically here?)
  • I did a bit more research that it was first mentioned by the transport minister in July.
    • This is still awkward. The first time the station is referred to in the article as a white elephant is at the end of a sentence about someone denying it. The source gives more context to his denial, which I would include. I would suggest revising this to something like "Residents of Buangkok began to refer to the station as a "white elephant"; in July 2003 transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong said it was not, as it would open when the area had further development".
• please, here or elsewhere, briefly explain the idiomatic meaning of "white elephant" for those not familiar (I am, but that doesn't mean every reader will be, and they will lose out on a huge amount of the context without this)
  • Added hatnote.

White elephant incidents

• I didn't catch this before, but I would probably move the first paragraph of this section ("To address SBS Transit's doubts...") into the previous section, as it concerns a poll, not the white elephant incident

• I might split this whole section into "white elephant protests" and "station opening", it's quite large
  • Done.
• "Chong and other grassroots leaders" in what way is an MP a grassroots leader? what other types of leaders were involved?
  • As said, grassroots leaders are community leaders.
• " near Punggol station" is this station nearby or otherwise comparable to Buangkok? ie, why Punggol specifically?
  • I'm not so sure why they did the survey for Punggol. And truthfully the two cases aren't comparable, since Punggol is relatively developed and have their LRT system.
    • So there's no indication in the sourcing why they picked that?
• "visited Punggol South " what's Punggol South
  • I guess the south side of Punggol. The article seems to imply he was on the way to Punggol South when he saw the cardboard cutouts
    • This is FA, we shouldn't be guessing nor should we be leaving the reader to guess. If it's the south side of Punggol, say that, but "Punggol South" with the capital implies that it's a proper noun
• Do we know who put the cutouts up? Like any specific activist group?
  • It's some PAP cadre/grassroot leader. But per WP:BLPCRIME, I didn't name who he is.
    • What is PAP, for those of us who don't live in Singapore? Could we name his organization, perhaps, even if not him?
• "the construction of the 2,000 residential units" what 2,000 residential units?
  • Like, individual residential units? Like apartments?
    • Again, I apologise for not spelling this out with greater clarity. This is the same "the X" thing from earlier. Here, when you say, "following the construction of the 2,000 residential units", it implies that there was a previous mention of some plan to build 2,000 residential units, and that the reader should know about this and go "ah, yes, the 2,000 residential units". But there was no previous mention of any plan to do this, so the reader does not go "ah, yes," they go "what".
• "the elephant cut-outs were removed" by the public as in "good job, we made our point" or by the government as in "nice try, citizens"
  • Sources never stated clearly who took them down. Most likely whoever put them up in the first place.
    • The source says the police were looking for them, so that makes sense. We could say this in the article and let the reader draw their own conclusions. (Speaking of, that article mentions some government dudes wearing elephant print ties, presumably to support the protest - that's interesting, why is it not in the article?)
• "closed station", "station's continued closure" still gonna complain, pedantically, that it's not closed, it's unopened
  • "Unopened" it is.
    • Then this should be consistently applied - earlier we still have "keeping the station closed"
• "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat" -> simplify to "In a letter to The Straits Times, sociologist Chua Beng Huat commented that the investigation was "paranoid". He criticized the press for treating what he saw as a municipal-level issue as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government"
  • In this version I've removed "forum" as it would require clarifying that the Forum (capitalised) of the Straits Times is not just an internet forum where people can comment on anything, it's basically the letters to the editor section. "in a letter to" captures that without needing clarifying
  • Also added the municipal-level thing to clarify his criticism
  • Maybe also link Government of Singapore?
    • Done all of the above.
• "Chua had also called to distinguish between the varying degrees of importance of community matters in Singapore as he believed those who put up the cut-outs did not intend to challenge the government." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It feels redundant to the first sentence about Chua's opinion.
  • Removed then.
• "sternly warned one veteran grassroots leader" do we know who, or what for?
  • As said earlier, I didn't name him (it's actually in the PAP book Nick-D linked). And from the official statement: "The Police after consulting with the Attorney-General's Chamber, has issued a stern warning to the offender concerned in lieu of prosecution." From CNA, the police said there was an infraction. So I added "for an infringement of the Act".
• "For the carnival..." this is similar to my second to last comment in the History section, where you're introducing something as though the reader should already know it. I would suggest moving the part about the creation of the youth group and their shirts earlier, into the thick of the white elephant section. then here, you can return to them and be like "that group from earlier did some stuff..."
  • Done
• "Punggol South grassroots" again, who? grassroots what
  • Leaders
• "the youth" can just be "youth" I think
  • Ok
• "walk-a-jog" a what
  • Walk and jog event, I think
    • Okay, but that's not clear from the context, and this isn't a common phrase anywhere as far as I can tell
• I revised a couple sentences here for clarity
  • Ok
• "due to their amenities" such as?
  • Retail and commercial. Clarified
• Has nothing else happened to or about this station since 2008?
  • Nothing of significant note, unfortunately. Unless (touch wood) some terrorist attack.

Details & artwork

• "Being part of the NEL, the station is operated by SBS Transit." this could probably be condensed into the first sentence somewhere.
  • Combined with the later sentence..--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• HDB needs to be spelled out as Housing & Development Board; I had to google it. My initial assumption was "high-density buildings"
  • There's actually a mention of the agency earlier in the body so I abbreviated it there..--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you
• Lead implies that the Sengkang Grand Residencies is a future thing. Is this already in place? When was it built? When is the bus interchange supposed to happen?
  • It's currently under construction. I can't find when constructed began. Wait, a quick search showed that the mall itself has opened in March 2023, but not yet the residences above it, which has an expected completion date of 2026. So I suppose, yes the station currently serves the development because the retail side has opened. There's not yet an announced date for the opening of the bus interchange.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
    • Okay, so the lead should reflect that, because right now it still reads as a future thing with the "will also" phrasing
• What is an "integrated development"? Is it a specific designation?
  • Integrated commercial and residential development. Further clarified.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with Mike that "envelop" is not the correct word here
  • Wrote covered.
• Slightly reorganized the paragraphs here so that design & accessibility are one paragraph, and CD operations is its own paragraph
  • Noted.
• Artwork feels like it should be a subsection of details - is the art not logically a detail of the station?
  • Done.
• The whole artwork section feels somewhat disorganized, and I think it could be reduced in size
  • Summarised a bit during the reorganisation.
• "The images incorporate dots, graphic motifs, and bands to reflect the "vitality of Buangkok New Town"" - in what way do dots and bands reflect this? Who said it? We should always attribute subjective quotes in-text
  • Well, it's in the official LTA commentary. I'm unsure if the artist wrote it or it was by some LTA intern, because the original extensive commentary from the book didn't have the phrase. Attributed to LTA in general.
    • The way it's used in the source, it's basically meaningless marketing fluff. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the piece if we don't know what it means.
• "allowing him to express himself" this is redundant to the rest of the sentence
  • Removed.
• "The vibrant embellishments contrasted with the backdrop of black-and-white photographs" it's not clear what this clause has to do with the rest of the sentence
  • Well, the juxtapositions of colourful stuff against the black and white backdrop would catch your attention, wouldn't it? I thought that would be clear enough.
• We're all over the place here - why are we describing what's in the art in three separate paragraphs?
  • Reorganised based on details. Artist's background and intention, then the images selected before the embellishments.
    • With apologies, I still think this section does not work. You still have to read three whole paragraphs before you understand what the art even looks like. The artist's intention and the meaning of individual bits is less important than just describing the thing.

Honestly, I hate to say it, but I'm leaning a bit towards oppose in the state the article is in right now. It feels like this could have used a copyedit before coming to FAC. There are lots of small prose things that aren't quite up to snuff, and there's a few larger things that stand out to me (organization, clarity of certain aspects). I'll stick around and see what comes of more work though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough comments. I will need some time to look over your thoughts. I have also expanded the lead more to try explain more about the incidents. I admit perhaps my writing style may not be up to scratch, but I will try my best to address the other comments. I'm not feeling that great at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Keeping an offsite link of p150 here. p151.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, I've replied to a few things above. Take your time, there's no rush responding to anything, I just didn't want to forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

ZKang123 what's the status of this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Sorry I've been a bit busy with university lately but will get back on this soon.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Addressed the rest of your comments to the best of my abilities. I will understand however if you still don't think this article is up to shape.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

PMC Your thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Very sorry, haven't had a chance to actually sit down and get into things for a few days. Having had a look now, I'm inclined to oppose at this time, unfortunately. Despite a lot of suggestions from multiple reviewers, there are still numerous areas where the writing makes the article confusing, and things are often disorganized. The prose is just not up to FA standards in my opinion. I think the bones are there, but it needs a copyedit for clarity, and FAC isn't the place for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Located underneath Sengkang Central": I thought this was a place but eventually figured out it was a road. A link to an article about the road would work if we had one, but in lieu of that, could we say "underneath Sengkang Central, a north-south thoroughfare in Sengkang" or even " ... in Sengkang in northeastern Singapore"? Or anything that makes it clear to non-locals that it's a road?
  • Added "the road of"

    I don't think that works. How about reversing the sequence of the sentence so that it can be introduced more naturally as part of the description of the neighbourhood? E.g. "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok and is located near the intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow"? I think "intersection" makes it clear we're talking about roads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• "including a white elephant protest incident": this isn't comprehensible without the additional information later in the article. Maybe "including a protest that used cardboard cutouts to describe the closed station as a white elephant"? And I would definitely link white elephant.
  • Yeah added.

    I think that's better. Can we change "labeling the station a "white elephant" if it had opened" to "and said the station would have been a white elephant if it had opened"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• "White Teflon sheets envelop the two entrances": I don't think "envelop" is the right word -- it implies the entrances are invisible under a completely enfolding layer of Teflon. If the image in the infobox is a guide, how about "White Teflon sheets roof the two entrances"? And the same comment applies to the same sentence in the body.
  • I used "covered".
• "After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods. The site was excavated to ...". Suggest "After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the site was excavated to ...". The names "open-cut" and "bottom-up" may be the usual names for those methods, but given the next sentence explains exactly what they are, the reader gets no more information from the names, so we might as well cut them.
  • Fixed.
• "Member of Parliament (MP)": suggest dropping the abbreviation as you don't use it in the rest of the article.
  • Fixed.
• "willing to walk the long distance to the station": suggest just "willing to walk to the station"; the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that SBS Transit must have considered it a long distance, and we don't need to tell readers that since for many (I would think most) readers this is going to seem a pretty short distance.
  • Fixed.
• "willing to make daily trips to a station 400 meters away": I think this is the wrong way to introduce the 2005 poll. SBS Transit believed that too few people would ride from the station -- the 400 m distance is just a dividing line they used to split residents into two groups for their initial poll. If enough people who lived within 100 m had said they'd ride the station would have been opened; the distance wasn't relevant to the decision. That figure presumably influenced the wording of Chong's poll that July, but we don't need to draw that connection for the reader -- they'll get it when the numbers are quoted.
  • Alright deleted that part.
• "walk the long distance to": again I would cut this to "walk to".
  • Fixed.
• What does "Singapore's single-tier government" refer to? I had a look at Government of Singapore but couldn't find anything that seemed like it would be the intended meaning.
  • I think it's also due to how we are a city-state and there's no subdivisions like national-state-city etc.

    Rereading the whole sentence I'm not actually sure what Chua Beng Huat means. "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat on The Straits Times forum as "paranoid", pointing out how the incident was treated by the press as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government." Why does the fact that the incident was treated as a national incident by the press mean that the investigation was paranoid? What connection are they drawing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

    • I got into this a little with my suggested fix to that sentence. In the source, basically, Chua is saying that the station opening is nothing more than a municipal-level issue. But because Singapore is a city-state where the municipality is the nation, everything gets jacked up into a national-level issue because there's no lower-level government to take care of it. So this doofy little local protest of cardboard elephants winds up getting national attention from the press. The national government doesn't want to be seen to be doing nothing, so they investigate it as a criminal matter, which to Chua is a paranoid response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• No year is given for any of the dates in the "White elephant" section after the surgery named in the first sentence, except for the mention of 2008 as a possible opening date. I would give the year again at the next date mentioned after that, just so the reader is aware the mention of 2008 is not moving the narrative three years forward.
  • Added dates.
• "taken an interest in current affairs": this is apparently a typo for "taking", but I would cut the whole phrase anyway as it's evident from the rest of the sentence.
  • Alright cut away. I suppose it was missing "having"
• Is there any information about how long it took for ridership to grow from 1,386/day? No problem if the sources don't say, but there was so much fuss about the ridership numbers I think you could justify including whatever data there is.
  • Not really, except I just pulled the latest numbers that the daily ridership is now 19,000 (recorded in June 2024), and added that in the infobox
• What is an HDB flat?
  • Public flats. I mentioned HDB earlier in the body.
• "allowing him to express himself": vague and I think could just be cut.
  • Done.
• "vibrant embellishments" is a bit WP:PEACOCK.
  • Cut vibrant and explained which are the embellishments.
• "which blur out certain images while creating a new image": I don't know what this means. Pixels on TVs and computer images don't blur out images; if you get close to them the image is not discernible anymore, but that doesn't seem to be what's intended here -- and in any case that's mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of the section.
  • Well, I'm also not following what the artist said either. The relevant page p151. He said (near the end of the second column): "I relate to dots. TV and computer images are made of little dots or pixels. Dots blur out certain images while creating a new image altogether. They allow you to play with layers of images."

    I don't think we should be including material we don't understand. I agree his comments aren't clear; I think it would be best to just cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• "which were familiar to many Singaporeans": surely "are", not "were"?
  • Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Did the above changes, @Mike Christie:.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Have replied or struck everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Went over your other suggestions. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I've struck two of the points. When I read PMC's comments I found she'd spotted quite a few things I had missed, so rather than waste your time by repeating those points here I'm going to wait for you to finish working with her and then read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

More than six weeks into this nom and I don't think consensus to promote is close so I'm going to archive and ask that prose improvements be undertaken outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.