Talk:Chinatown MRT station

Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Station layout errors

The person who creates these for the Downtown Line always gets it wrong. Chinatown is of side platform configuration and the DTL platforms are at level B2, same as the NEL concourse. The information is verifiable through the information panel located outside the exit to Chinatown Point. I've edited as far as I know how to. Also, how certain is anyone that the DTL platforms are platforms C & D? This should not be displayed yet, perhaps with the numerals 1 and 2 instead till it can be made certain that the platforms will be called C & D. 220.255.2.66 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I would say remove every single one of them and wait for the date the lines open. That way, we can take things one step at a time. Seloloving (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Chinatown MRT - Illustration inspired by Singapore.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chinatown MRT - Illustration inspired by Singapore.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DTL Station Layout

Why is there a paid linkway to the Expo bound and Bukit Panjang bound platform? Aren't there only 2 tracks? Mylife2702 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SBS Transit Logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chinatown MRT station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Chinatown NEL platforms

• ... that constructing Chinatown station required diverting the Eu Tong Sen Canal into steel pipes, one of Singapore's largest drainage diversions? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that instead of demolishing the Garden Bridge for the construction of Chinatown station, the cultural landmark was underpinned by massive steel trusses? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT2:... that the artwork at Chinatown station features Chinese calligraphy on the floor instead of the walls in auspicious positions?

Improved to Good Article status by ZKang123 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - ALT1 doesn't hold much interest outside of the local area.
• Other problems: - ALT0 is the better of the remaining two hooks, but needs to be condensed (e.g. just referring to "a canal" would suffice).

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I assume the picture would go with the ALT2, but the hook needs to be edited to add a mention. Please rework the hooks and add sources to the nomination next time. QPQ not necessary yet. SounderBruce 07:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• ALT0: ... that constructing Chinatown station (see picture) required diverting the canal into steel pipes , one of Singapore's largest drainage diversions?
• ALT2: :... that the Chinese calligraphy at Chinatown station is positioned on the floor instead of the walls in auspicious positions?

Attempting to rephrase as requested.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

ALT0 reads awkwardly; again "the canal" should be "a canal". ALT2 needs to explain (or link to) what auspicious positions are in order to be globally accessible; the original version of ALT2 was also better, as it explained that the calligraphy is artwork. For future reference, sources should be added directly after the hook in the small-text, not in the format you've used. SounderBruce 08:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; was busy with other stuff and needed some time to think over. Hmm

• ALT0: ... that a canal had to be diverted into steel pipes while constructing Chinatown station (see picture)?

In honesty, for ALT2, I can't really explain, since I am not familiar with Chinese calligraphy myself, and I feel trying to explain what are auspicious positions will make the hook longer than it should. So I think I better go with ALT0.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• ALT0 looks good to go now, but I would prefer some location context, as there are dozens of places named "Chinatown station" around the world. SounderBruce 08:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright then: ... that a canal had to be diverted into steel pipes while constructing Singapore's Chinatown MRT station (see picture)?--ZKang123 (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

ZKang123, what do you think about slightly modifying your original hook to include to the location requested by SounderBruce, and get rid of the doubled "diverting/diversion": i.e.

• ALT4 ... that constructing Singapore's Chinatown station required redirecting the Eu Tong Sen Canal into steel pipes, in one of the country's largest drainage diversions?

Well it is honestly a bit too long winded compared to the refined version, but I will add the latter clause in. Hence:

... that in one of Singapore's largest drainage diversions, a canal had to be redirected into steel pipes while constructing Chinatown MRT station (see picture)?--ZKang123 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Leong, Chan Teik (2003). Getting there : The story of the North East Line. Singapore: Land Transport Authority (LTA). ISBN 981-04-5886-X. OCLC 53383062.
• Tan, Su (2003). Art in transit : North East Line MRT - Singapore. Singapore: Land Transport Authority. ISBN 981-04-7384-2. OCLC 52771106.

References