Talk:Tuas Link MRT station

Tuas Link 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: June 26, 2022. (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 Tuas Link MRT Station to Tuas Link MRT station. The result of the discussion was moved.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tuas Link MRT Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 09:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ShiriEdits (talk · contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this review. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Article has a clear and concise prose, spelling and grammar are satisfactory. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The concourse design allows an open view of the platforms, giving the station a "grand" feel. MOS:PUFFERY says that peacock words should be avoided. Make it more neutral without imparting information. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. ZKang123 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Reference layout is satisfactory. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Some of the sources come from first-party .gov websites (Ministry of Transport, Land Transport Authority, etc.). Add more reliable secondary or tertiary sources. Spodle^Talk 00:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to this, there's actually not many independent sources on the station design and construction. It's not that of a significant station that warranted commentary by other media.
It's a general problem for Singapore MRT stations in general. ZKang123 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Well I'm surprised that you, an actual native Singaporean and the person who nominated this article, responded to me. Well the point you made about MRT stations in Singapore not having big coverage is surprising to me. In my country, MRT (they have the same acroynm. that makes it more confusing!) are treated like they are building a skyscraper to rival the Burj Khalifa. You can easily find secondary or tertiary sources if you wanted to find sources for, say, the MRT-7. News channels here run morning news segments when a new train line is announced. That is a pretty big difference from my country's coverage and your country's coverage of rapid train stations. I wonder why news channels in your country don't have the level of coverage than what our news channels when a new rapid train station is announced. Are rapid transit are so ubiquitous that literally every single part of Singapore is covered by rapid transit? I'm curious to why that is the case. Spodle^Talk 01:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at this point the Singapore MRT spans almost the whole island. Plus, for this station, its part of a four-line extension through an industrial area, so it isnt totally big news compared to, say, a whole new line.
Also, the Land Transport Authority isnt like willing to divulge too much technical information to the public for some reason. ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
All statements have proper citations. ShiriEdits^Talk 04:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Little to no detections on copyvio. Most detections are just saying the name of Singaporean rapid transit stations. Link: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Tuas+Link+MRT+station&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 --Spodle^Talk 01:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Article covers main aspects. Spodle^Talk 08:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Article focuses on the main point, without adding intricate detail. Spodle^Talk 08:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Article represents viewpoints fairly and has no editorial bias. Spodle^Talk 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Very stable article, most edits are made to improve it. Spodle^Talk 04:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
All images have proper Creative Commons copyright tags and no images need to have a Fair use tag. Spodle^Talk 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Change some subtitles. Change the location subtitle to something like "Location of Tuas Link station in Singapore".

'Construction progress of the station' captions should be improved. Clarify which part of the station was being built in captions (except 'Existing station exterior'). Spodle^Talk 08:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you realise they are all taken from the same perspective. Improved captions accordingly. ZKang123 (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article checks almost all the points for being GA. I'll recheck if this is satisfactory to pass GA. Spodle^Talk 11:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is satisfactory enough to get GA'ed. Can't deny this article a GA since this article checks all the points to be GA.

Good article Sorry if it took too long for me to finish this GA. Spodle^Talk 00:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other[edit]

The extension consisted of four stations between this station and Tuas station (now renamed Gul Circle). Add link to Gul Circle MRT station.

Fixed. ZKang123 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The station serves developments such as Tuas Depot, Tuas Bus Terminal, Raffles Marina and Tuas Checkpoint. Unlink Raffles Marina due to the article not being made in English Wikipedia (as far as I am aware of). (PS: What is 'Raffles Marina'?) Spodle^Talk 09:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions