Wikipedia:Peer review/Downtown MRT line/archive1

Downtown MRT line

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in nominating this for Good Article and need external feedback to determine what can be done to make the article better (like is there anything missing from the article. I am also unsure whether we need to rework the history section, which seems to jump over the place, and how to rework the section.

Thank you!--ZKang123 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by KN2731

Hello, I'll look over the article and leave some comments. I'll also do some copyediting as I go through the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Travelling from one end to the other will take around 67 minutes" – is this necessary? Seems a bit trivial
• Third paragraph – does the DTL already hold the records, or will these records be set only after DTL3e opens?
• Generally there shouldn't need to be citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE.

History

• The planning → construction → expansion structure works well, in my opinion. However, I'd get rid of the bulleted list and put the whole thing in prose, since the images to the left make the bullets pretty much useless.
• Wasn't the Eastern Region Line merged into TEL and not DTL?
• Does the quote by PM Lee serve any purpose? It could be summarised and put into Background and inception without squeezing the text, which is already flanked by images on the left side.
• "Although planned to terminate at Bugis (and following service 170's route), the Nicoll Highway collapse and subsequent feasibility works deemed Nicoll Highway unusable." Not sure why Nicoll Highway is mentioned here, could do with some context. Also, bus 170 isn't really relevant here.
• Gali Batu depot – any update?

Network and operations

• I'm not sure if citing OpenStreetMap is appropriate since it's user-generated, but it could be permissible for something uncontroversial. Is there a precedent for using it as a source?
• I'd remove the image of the active route map, it doesn't add much value and the far end of the route can't really be seen clearly.

Rolling stock and train control

• I would suggest putting these as level 3 subsections under a level 2 subsection called "Infrastructure", and another level 3 subsection named "Stations" added so the bit platform screen doors belongs somewhere.
• "the Downtown line has one type of rolling stock, the Bombardier MOVIA C951 cars" – are C951 and C951A the same type of train?
• May be worth briefly mentioning Art in Transit: here are a couple of news articles. If anything on station design or amenities can be found it could help to increase comprehensiveness.

General comments applying to the whole article:

• Since DTL is abbreviated in the lead, you might as well use the abbreviation instead of spelling out Downtown Line every time (except where the line is being named).
• Be careful whether you capitalise the L when naming MRT lines e.g. Thomson–East Coast line or Thomson–East Coast Line.
• Use of LTA as a source should be minimized, since LTA may be considered a primary source.
• References need to be appropriately and consistently formatted (GA criteria 2b). Citation templates such as {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} could help to standardise formatting but they aren't compulsory. Authors and dates should be included if available. Ref 9 (book) could do with more information e.g. ISBN, author which can be found here. Format could be done with {{Cite book}}.
• No comment about images, I'm not very well versed with image licensing.

I'd say the article is around B-class at the moment, just needs a little more work before it can be considered GA status. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Will look into them.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)