Talk:Tanah Merah MRT station

Tanah Merah MRT station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 3, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Singapore Low‑importance

	Singapore portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

On 7 January 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tanah Merah MRT Station to Tanah Merah MRT station. The result of the discussion was moved.

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) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Track layout?

The shuttle service to the Airport has cross-platform interchange, in both? directions.

This can be achieved with three platforms, the middle platform being double sideD?

Is there a track layout to show this?

Tabletop (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The track in the middle is only one sided. The trains just go in(Tanah Merah Direction), waits for passengers, then heads back towards Changi Airport. Think of it as "shuttle service". I am a Singaporean who takes rides Tanah Merah MRT station almost daily, very clear about this issue. In fact the train stops in the middle line for 15 seconds, and passengers who accidentally go onto the wrong side of the platform can use the train as a "crossover". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 09:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Brachy0008 (talk · contribs) 02:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? @ZKang123? Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is there are no non-primary sources when it comes to describing the station locations. ZKang123 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in here having recently witnessed a mess with a similar point of contention: a primary source is not automatically unreliable because it is primary in nature; it can contain encyclopedic information that cannot be found elsewhere, in which case it is likely the best source for that information. Specifically for their use here, train operating hours and intervals, as well as locations in geographical proximity to stations, fall under straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge (from WP:PRIMARY). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll pass it. Brachy08 _(Talk) 00:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):

b (inline citations to reliable sources): , ~~FN 32-33 are primary sources, try finding secondary sources for them.~~

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism): , checked with Earwig’s tool.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):

b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Not so much bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars here.
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): , all images are own work, and have their CC tags.

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
No issues so far! Just fix the non-primary source problem and you’re good to go! I left out FN 28 and 29, but it is best to find non-primary sources for them, but I’ll let them pass, it’s a GA review after all.