Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nicoll Highway MRT station/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2022 [1].


Nicoll Highway MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a Singapore MRT station that has a rather dark period during its construction history. Following what I learned from my previous two FAC nominations, I hope this will fit the criteria.ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: licensing looks good, but the external image box is sandwiching with the infobox (I would suggest removing, as the collapse has its own article and the external image could be linked there) and the NCH collapse map.png should be removed or scaled up to be readable (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Has scaled up the image of the map. Still essential to visualise the realignment of stationa and tunnels. ZKang123 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==== Cmments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ====

  • "S$270 million (US$150.7 million)" - inflation?
  • 100-by-130-by-30-metre is extremely awkward
  • Please specify "Circle line", "Republic Avenue", "Golden Mile Tower", and more. For example, "Circle line" to "Circle MRT line" with linking.
  • "intended" sounds like reading someone's intent. Removing them would be better for prose crispness, such as "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station..." -> "The platform's dark, polished seats complement the rest of the station..."
  • List is not exhaustive

Overall: I found the article to be a good read, but I have a feeling that the prose can be better. I support the nomination for almost all criteria except 1a, 1c (haven't checked), and 1f (haven't checked). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will review this later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Are there any more details that can be added to the lead about the station design and name/location?
  • "First announced as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL), the station was incorporated into Stage 1 of the CCL" - When (for both of these)?
  • "claiming four lives" - Should this be "killing four people"?

History:

  • "The MRL consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium stations." - This should be "from the Dhoby Ghaut station to the Stadium station", "from Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station", or even "from Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium". In the second instance, "Stadium station" is singular, even though it's a span of several stations, because it's from one single station to another single station.
  • "and associated tunnels" - Does this mean the tunnels surrounding the station?
  • "From 16 March 2002" - Not sure if this is a WP:ENGVAR thing, but should this be "Starting on 16 March 2002"?
  • "A new overhead bridge was constructed so that pedestrians could cross over the highway between the bus stops and The Concourse" - Did these works end before the collapse?

Station collapse:

  • "the tunnels linking to the station" - This is a similar question to the "associated tunnels" query I had.
  • "creating a hole 100 meters long, 130 meters wide, and 30 meters deep (328 by 427 by 98 ft)" - In all cases, these should be spelled as "metres".
  • "The incident claimed the lives of four people with three injured" - This can be simplified to "Four people were killed and three were injured".
  • "the search for the last victim's body had to be called off" - After how long? This may seem like a small detail, but there is a major difference between calling off a search after several days and making the immediate determination to call off the search.
  • "after the collapse, to minimise further damage to the collapsed area" - The comma can be removed.
  • "Works were suspended at 16 of the 24 CCL dig sites to allow a review of the sites" - This sounds slightly redundant due to the repetition of "sites". Can this be reworded? Also, it may help to use active voice, e.g. "Contractors halted work at 16 of the 24 CCL dig sites so these could be reviewed."
  • "The remaining equipment and material at the site were encased" - The word "encased" is slightly unclear. Was the equipment and material buried under infill? Or were the equipment and material just left in the construction box and sealed off?
  • "such that the new highway" - This can be condensed to "so the new highway"
  • "Through an investigation by a Committee of Inquiry (COI), the report" - The text currently doesn't explicitly say the COI published the report, so I would make that clearer.
  • Some uncommon words such as deflection (engineering) and inclinometer should be linked.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was decided against rebuilding at the original site due to engineering challenges and higher costs" - I suggest using active voice for this.
  • "while the 1.8 km (1.1 mi) tunnels" -This should be either "1.8 km (1.1 mi) of tunnels" or "1.8-km (1.1 mi) tunnels" (using 1.8-kilometre as an adjective)
  • "The new station site had thicker 1.5 m (4.9 ft) retaining walls reaching 60 metres (200 ft) in height[30] – twice the previous depth.[29] " - Two things here:
    • Does this mean the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thick, or the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thicker? If the former, I would suggest "The new station site had thicker retaining walls of 1.5 m (4.9 ft)"
    • Are the retaining walls 60 metres in height or in depth?
  • "On 29 September 2005, the LTA marked the start of the new station's construction with a ground-breaking ceremony" - The relocated site?
  • What happened between 29 September 2005, and 26 January 2010? That paragraph seems like it lacks detail, at least given how the section about the collapse has much more detail.
  • "Prior to its opening, passengers were offered a preview of the station" - This should be "Prior to the station's opening"; currently, the pronoun "it" refers to the noun "passengers" grammatically.
Services:
  • "that line had to be realigned as the new station did not have provisions for the line" - The word "line" is repeated twice in this sentence, being mentioned a total of three times, so I would rephrase this to make the sentence less repetitive.
  • By the way, has that future line been realigned at both Promenade and Nicoll Highway, or just Nicoll Highway?
  • Are the train frequencies all day?
Name and location
  • "As the name suggests, the station is located near Nicoll Highway underneath Republic Avenue" - For those who are unfamiliar with the area, it would help to add which neighborhood this station is in. More generally (for other MRT stations), it may be worth mentioning which region the station is in, like Central Region, Singapore, unless these regions get changed a lot.
  • "The name of the station was its working name" - This was the name given to the station while it was in planning?
  • "two other names for the station..." - This is also somewhat repetitive, given how it comes right after "the name of the station was its working name". I presume one of these was supposed to be the final names?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Services:
  • "and has train frequencies ranging between 5 and 7 minutes " - I'd suggest condensing this to something such as "with trains running every 5 to 7 minutes"
Design:
  • "The two-level underground station has a length of 165 metres (541 ft) and the platforms are at a depth of 21.5 metres (71 ft)" - I would also condense this: e.g. "The two-level underground station is 165 metres (541 ft) long and the platforms are 21.5 metres (71 ft) deep"
  • "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station's modern design" - Are these art seats?
  • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station connecting to The Concourse via an overhead pedestrian bridge" - Two things here:
    • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A" should be consistent with regard to entrances/exits. So i.e. "The station has two exits"; however, I realise this could be repetitive.
    • ""The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station" - The words "of the station" are unnecessary. I would suggest "The station has two exits, with Exit A
    • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are wider fare gates" - All of the fare gates are wide, or just some of them?
Artwork
This is a decent article, and I didn't find too many problems with it. I understand it may be difficult to find sources about the post-collapse construction and station design, and this looks good otherwise. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Though relatively short, this seems like a comprehensive article to me, considering the available coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it receives further in depth attention by the four week mark I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KN2731

[edit]

I'll take a look at this as requested. I've previously reviewed the article for GA status last August. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things at first glance:

  • "the station serves various developments along Nicoll Highway" - "various" doesn't really add value to the sentence since examples are quickly provided. Maybe change to a mix of commercial/residential/industrial?
  • The section titled "Station collapse" should probably be "Tunnel collapse" instead - a reader may get the impression that part of the underground station itself caved in, when in actuality it was the section of tunnels about a third of the way to Stadium.
  • "train frequencies ranging between 5 and 7 minutes in both directions daily" - does it go lower during peak hours? It's been a couple years but I recall intervals being 3 to 4 minutes at around 7 in the morning.

I'll look more closely once you've responded to the other 3 reviewers so I don't end up flagging an issue that's already been raised. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which the government had accepted" → no need "had"
  • "the station [...] would be opened on 17 April" → would open/begin operations
  • "The two-level underground station has a length of 165 metres (541 ft) and a depth of 21.5 metres (71 ft)." Should be "at a depth"?
  • I feel like the realigned "unspecified future line" is almost certainly the DTL but if there's no source supporting that it's fine.

That's all I have. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews so far. Addressed them. Well, the LTA in the source never specified which future line, though it's likely the Bukit Timah Line (now DTL2), or actually the Kallang line (the early Marina line plans suggested a branch to Kallang). This will probably remain lost among the discarded LTA archives... ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support at this stage. Great work. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Another nice article from you, and I see you've implemented some of my comments from Chinatown! :) I'll also do a source review too. Gerald WL 11:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "The station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL). The MRL consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station." --> "Nicoll Highway station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Mass Rapid Transit's Marina line (MRL), which consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station."
Source review
[edit]

The sources are similar to those of Chinatown so I pass this article for its source choices. However, ref 32 seems to have a formatting problem with the website parameter. Remove the urls in website parameter-- "journey.smrt.com.sg", "lta.gov.sg", "mot.gov.sg"-- as they're redundant duplicates of the publisher. Link Singapore Land Authority.

  • Honestly, Im just being kiasu and just had both. But I will hide down. If a subsequent reviewer said to keep, then I will show it.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lmao I get the kiasu dilemma, get that a lot when editing. But yeah I don't think the url names are important, the publisher makes it clearer as to what the source name is. Anyways that's a pass for source. GeraldWL 12:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

I'll look through this FAC tomorrow to see if it's ready to promote. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nicoll_Highway_MRT_station/archive1&oldid=1069570174"