Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Outram Park MRT station/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 31 January 2024 [1].

Outram Park MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brachy08 (Talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a MRT station in Singapore. The station serves three lines, the East-West line, the North-East line and the Thomson-East Coast line.Brachy08 (Talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the sources a bit here and there, I would like a second source review. Brachy08 (Talk) 02:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ajpolino

[edit]

Some general comments as I read through:

  • Lead - constructed a part, I assume this is a small typo and "as" is intended? Or I'm misunderstanding the sentence.
  • Lead - due to be completed by December 1987. A small suggestion: In my home country infrastructure projects are actually completed long after they're due to be completed. So reading this made me wonder "when was it actually completed?" which it appears is in December as planned. Perhaps the reader might prefer to read "and was completed in December 1987" in the lead instead?
  • Lead - Before plans for the line were extended... weird grammar. Presumably it's not the plans that were extended, but the line.
  • Lead - joining Marina Bay and Dhoby Ghaut stations. seems like an unimportant detail to me (the names of the other two triple stations).
  • History - station;[2] the seems like it should be "station.[2] The"
  • History - the segment was due to be completed by December 1987 actually could this be moved down a bit? It kind of disrupts the flow of the paragraph.
  • History - A slip road from Outram Road... and sewer pipes were moved doesn't feel like a lastingly important detail.
  • History - I'm not saying The tunnel from Outram Park to Tiong Bahru was scheduled to be completed in September 1984 needs to go, but currently it's the only piece of information we get from the selection of the tunneling company in 1983 to the station's opening in 1987. Is there anything else we can say about the construction process? It's a weird factoid in isolation (also isn't that just part of the required tunneling?).
    • Regarding your concern, it's just part of the required tunneling. But I checked NewspaperSG. Can't find any more sources about the construction of this station on the EWL. (For the drive-by dudes, reply with a reliable source pertaining the construction of this station on the EWL)Brachy08 (Talk) 05:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • History - From 28 October 1989, Outram Park... split of the MRT system. I'm confused. After this date could you still ride a train from Outram Park north to Yishun station? Maybe it would help if you briefly clarified what the "split of the MRT system" entailed.
  • History - Preliminary studies... to serve the World Trade Centre. a bit redundant. How about "Preliminary studies for the North East Line (NEL) in 1986 included plans to terminate that line at Outram Park.[16] By 1995 the planned line had been extended to include an additional new stop, the World Trade Centre MRT station (now called HarbourFront)."
  • History - After the government approved plans for the new line in January 1996, seems like an unimportant detail. Could you just start "In March 1996... confirmed Outram Park would interchange with the NEL".
  • History - Two meeting points called Heart Zones were designated near the EWL and NEL exits to better assist the elderly can you clarify what heart zones are?
  • History - You may want to clarify what Pearls Centre is (housing complex?) so readers unfamiliar with it can follow along.
  • History - In general, I'm not sure the day is always required when you list dates. Sometimes it's helpful to pinpoint important events. But sometimes it's extraneous detail.
  • History - as part of Phase 3 should we know what "Phase 3" is? If not, maybe a bit of explanation would help? Same as Stage 3 below?
  • History - Contract T220 is this the name of the contract? Not sure it's a useful detail here.
  • History - they were tested and monitored for structural integrity during construction unnecessary detail?
  • History - On 7 October 2022... 13 November that year ... well, did it?
  • History - Four platform central... were otherwise unaffected. unnecessary detail?

That's all for particular nitpicks, but I'm sorry to say I feel the reading experience is a bit choppy and unsatisfying. It reads as if the article is a chronological collection of local news snippets, instead of a comprehensive and cohesive article on the topic. It's possible that could be fixed by smoothing out the prose, but I'm concerned the choppiness is an inherent limitation to relying largely on news articles for source material. Is there any more general retrospective source material on the development of these MRT lines that you could use to help fill out this article? The Bibliography subsection lists a book that seems promising (and one that seems less promising), though oddly neither seems to be used in the article. Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino adressed some of the points you put up. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to give Getting there : the story of the North East Line a read. For now, that's all the adressing I can do. Thanks for spending some time reviewing this article. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nick-D - not passed

[edit]

My checks of references selected at semi-random returned a bit of a mixed bag I'm afraid:

  • Reference 8: The statement that "During the station's construction, Outram Primary School was relocated" largely checks out, though the reference notes that the school was about to be relocated rather than it had been. A reference confirming the move took place would be good.
  • Reference 9: The statement that "the tunnel from Outram Park to Tiong Bahru was scheduled to be completed in September 1984" largely checks out, but the source notes that it was "expected" that it would take this long not that it was "scheduled" to
  • Reference 14: I can't see where this supports the statement that "Preliminary studies for the North East Line (NEL) in 1986 included plans to terminate that line at Outram Park station rather than HarbourFront station" - the text makes no reference to these stations, and the station is shown on the map as part of a continuous line (the map doesn't differentiate the planned lines).
  • Reference 19: The statement that "On 14 August 2017, Two meeting points designated for assistance from commuters called Heart Zones were designated near the EWL and NEL exits to better assist the elderly" isn't fully supported by the source. The source notes that this was a trial, which isn't mentioned in the article which implies it was a permanent feature, and states that the zones were for "Elderly, frail and disabled commuters" rather than just the elderly. The story also notes that this trial was done as the station serviced a hospital and the article doesn't make this link.
  • Reference 28: The text "Contract T220 for the design and construction of Outram Park TEL platform..." is not supported by the source. This gives the number of the contract as T222, and states that it was for the construction of the station, not its design as well. It is noted elsewhere in this source that other contracts were for design and construction of stations, so I presume that the contract for this station was construction-only given this wasn't noted. This source also doesn't support the statement that "Construction started in 2014" as it says that "Construction works for these four stations to commence second quarter of 2014".
  • The formatting of this reference and various other internet references are also not at FA standard, though this is an easy fix
  • Reference 29: Largely checks out, but the statement that "in tandem with the TEL station's opening, a new underpass was opened to allow commuters to cross Outram Road" is not fully supported by the source, which states that this would open in the near future - a reference confirming it opened would be superior.
  • Reference 33: checks out
  • Reference 34: checks out, but the text in the article "ruled the shooting was without any criminal intent" has been repeated word for word from the source
  • There were no other problems with close paraphrasing in the sources checked, and the text doesn't read like this would be an issue anywhere else.
  • Are you sure that "Must Share News - Independent News For Singaporeans" is a reliable source? It looks like a clickbait style website that aims to put a generally optimistic spin on Singapore-area news, and this Straits Times story says it's "Linked to social-media marketing firm Gushcloud". I can't see any discussions of this source at WP:RSN. The website has a solid-looking editorial policy, but is it regarded as being an accurate and non-biased source?
  • Land Transport Authority shouldn't be linked in the bibliography section, especially twice, as it's linked in the body of the article.
  • I note from the review above that neither of these works has actually been consulted. Leaving aside the discussion of whether they should be (which I think is out of scope for source review), they should be listed as 'further reading' rather than 'bibliography' if they're not referenced.
  • Other than that the sources look OK, with the usual proviso about the independence/frankness of the media in Singapore when covering anything to do with the government. The article doesn't appear to include any sources that aren't either Singapore media stories or published by the government, but I suspect that few if any exist given the nature of the topic - they would be useful if they exist though.
  • Does the 'Outram Park to Changi Airport MRT station route' external link need to be included? I don't see what this adds.

Overall, this is a higher rate of issues than I'm comfortable with at the FA level, though most are modest. I suspect that the article would benefit greatly from a run through by the nominator where the content of the sources is compared to the text. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FN29 says that "When the TEL Outram Park MRT station opens in November, the public can use a permanent, free-to-access 24-hour underpass to cross Outram Road as well." Brachy08 (Talk) 06:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased FN33 a bit. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlinked Land Transport Authority Brachy08 (Talk) 06:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the Outram Park to Changi Airport link Brachy08 (Talk) 06:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure about MSN, or Gushcloud. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I adressed the specific parts you mentioned. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D? Brachy08 (Talk) 09:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I work for a living, so there's no need to ping me when I haven't responded within a day. It's hard to understand your responses above as they're not posted under the relevant comments for some reason. I note that some of the source formatting remains problematic and 'Must Share News' remains as a reference. I don't think that this is a pass source review given the frequency of issues I found in the spot checks, and I'll mark it as such. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry for disturbing you. Brachy08 (Talk) 10:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to chime in as someone working on numerous MRT articles: There's still a lot more I wish to do for this article; I just did not have the time to expand on the NEL construction and the NEL artwork sections. I rather not have this on FAC until I manage to come around and make the updates. The current article state is not desirable for FAC with lack of coverage compared to to adjacent Chinatown MRT station. Personally, I would Oppose promoting this to FAC.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Having gone through all the above comments I think it best we archive this for further work outside the FAC process. I note that the nominator has tried to do the right things with GAN, PR and GOCE beforehand but obviously issues remain. Perhaps a collaboration with ZKang if/when they have time? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Outram_Park_MRT_station/archive1&oldid=1201589618"