Talk:Clementi MRT station/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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: Format of the article prose needs to be restructured 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)
 * "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)
 * , if you feel the article is inadequate, you should fail the nomination. Per WP:GAN/I, "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. &#126;~ 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)
 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * – Dream out loud (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * – Dream out loud (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * – Dream out loud (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)