Talk:Clementi MRT station/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dream out loud (talk · contribs) 07:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to see another rail transport article being nominated. Before I can do a full GA assessment, I'd like to share some feedback.

Infobox needs to be cleaned up a bit:

• "Taxi" connection is not relevant, I'm sure this applies to all stations
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Station has an elevated and underground section, yet infobox says only 1 platform level, and 1 island platform? (also "island platform" should not have a piped link)
  • So far we are not totally sure of the CRL platform configuration.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Dates in history section should use {{Start date}}, not {{Start date and age}} (the latter is mostly for biography articles)
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Electrification parameter is for the date it was electrified if not at date of opening (not a "yes" or "no")
  • Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Is there any ridership data available?
  • No. Not as of recently.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Format of the article prose needs to be restructured a bit:

• "Details" section should be renamed to "Station details" and expanded a bit. It should include details such as the layout of the station, services available, ridership data, etc.
• "History" section should be split up. It currently contains construction history and a rail incident. The incident should be in its own section, seperate from the station's construction history.

As much as I will like to include more station details, they are pretty scant in official media and hence nothing more could be added. A GAN reviewer also once suggested to name the section "Details" rather than "Station details" since well, the article itself is about a station. Also, I think the history section as it is is already fine.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, images in the article are missing alt text.

Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Dream out loud, ZKang123, where does this nomination stand? As far as I can tell, nothing has been done for over a month and a half since ZKang123 posted here; Dream out loud, are you prepared to do the full GA assessment you mentioned? Thank you both. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not had much time to actively edit for the past month, so I cannot commit to proceeding with the full assessment right now. However, I will say that upon reading the article, it still needs work and I would not support a promotion yet.

My major comments about reformatting the "Details" and "History" sections have not been properly addressed. The "History" section is way too long for an article about a subway station. It should just contain background information of historical signficance related to the station.

• Historical: Dates of planning, construction, opening, rail incident, etc.
• Not historical: Installation of new doors, fans, etc.

Anything else about the station's infrastructure should be moved to the "Details" section (which itself needs to be renamed and expanded). –Dream out loud (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dream out loud, do you want to formally fail this article, on the grounds that your major comments have not been addressed? Right now @ZKang123 is stuck in limbo. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with Dream out loud's assessment, since the upgrades would be relevant (like in Clark Street station), and would prefer a second opinion on this GAN.

I also cannot simply expand the details section without having more available reliable sources at hand.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dream out loud, if you feel the article is inadequate, you should fail the nomination. Per WP:GAN/I#R2, "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner"; completion does not have to be a pass, but it should be within a reasonable amount of time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologize again for not following up on this GA assessment in a timely manner. I have thorougly reviewed the GA criteria and decided to pass this article's nomination. Although the minor issues I mentioned were not addressed, I don't feel that any of it would disqualify the article from being promoted. Some improvements would definitely need to be made for an additional promotion to FA status, but for now I would be glad to see this article listed as a Good Article. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   –Dream out loud (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)