Talk:Chinatown MRT station/GA1

GA Review

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: MSG17 (talk · contribs) 02:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GA worthiness over the coming week. Honestly, I am interested in reviewing this article because it seems pretty fitting after the recent ”牛“ year celebrations. I also appreciate the lengths you go in your research for these articles, and think you are doing a great job in presenting and preserving the history of the Singapore MRT through Wikipedia. So far it looks pretty good, and I will start adding comments soon. MSG17 (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Prose, MOS and neutrality

Don't have much here, mostly minor grammar issues and prose that looks odd to my (American) eyes.

• Preventing disruption to the power and water supply... -> To prevent disruption...
• it was initially considered to dismantle the bridge... -> it was initially planned to dismantle the bridge...
• tunnel boring machine is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized, also as it is only mentioned once the acronym is not necessary
• "on the river" is redundant here, best to remove
• The coolies on the mural were portrayed as victorious strong men draw in Greek classical style should be drawn
  •  Fixed for points above--ZKang123 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
• reinstated several times, through seven major phases comma unnecessary
• two sides of Pagoda Street, so that the pedestrians comma unnecessary
• It was initially considered to support the canal with steel beams during ground excavation and the station's construction. -> Using steel beams to support the canal during ground excavation and the station's construction was initially considered.
• damaging the canal, causing a flood to the site. -> damaging the canal and causing the site to flood.
• was scaled back to six stations that will be part of the Circle Line -> was scaled back to six stations that would form the first stage of the Circle Line
• Link Marina Bay
• the entrance also adopts an innovative mechanical flood barrier, instead of elevating the entrance that will be obstructive to the street view. Flood water would flow into a chamber underneath the barrier's floor, which causes the barrier to rise and act as a gate against the water. -> the entrance also adopts an innovative mechanical flood barrier, eliminating the need to elevate the entrance to a level that would obstruct the view of the street. During a flood, water would flow into a chamber underneath the barrier's floor, causing the barrier to rise and act as a gate against the overflow.
• Link to Sri Mariamman Temple, Singapore; the page currently links to a disambiguation
• Should've explained where the error was better.. I meant change draw to drawn, but I think that your modification also works and I eliminated the word "draw"
• The list of retail developments is quite long... keep only a few of the most relevant ones and since at least one is also a residential building it might be wise to note that it is also close to residential developments as well as commercial
  • Just checked your recent changes, looks pretty good. You only missed the flood one, so I just quickly fixed it. With that, I can say that this article is 'passed and ready to become a GA. MSG17 (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

References

• All the refs look reliable except for "streetdirectory.com" - can you find a better source to use instead of this for the locations?
  •  Fixed
    • Great, although you should note that it is published by the Land Authority in the refs.
• Ref 24 shouldn't have a space between it and the comma
  • Ref 24 looks fine to me, or are you referring to another ref I didn't spot?--ZKang123 (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmmm.... I checked again and I can't find it. I think I must have been looking at another article by accident. Sorry about that.
• Refs 37 and 38 seems to be the same thing in different formats - eliminate one of them
• Ref 65 (on the NEL station artwork) seems to be misplaced in the DTL section.
  • All refs fixed, passed here

Stability

No major daily changes or edit warring here. Passed

Copyvio and images

Earwig detects nothing, and I would be inclined to believe you wouldn't have any copyvio issues here, although I'll double check when I do a more in-depth review. All images are properly tagged and are relevant, either covered the station, nearby affected environs, and diagrams showing where the station is. The image sandwiching for the Downtown Line section is not optimal, but in my view its not a failure of the criteria and, as stated before, all the images are used in a relevant manner. Passed

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.