Talk:Dhoby Ghaut MRT station

Comments for improvement
I was going to comment at this article's FAC last week, but the nomination was closed before I could comment. For the art section, there is a good argument that it shouldn't overly rely on descriptions given by the designers. Here is a list of things I noticed, briefly. Most of these are based on content instead of wording.


 * Seeking to reflect the diversity of Singapore's and the regional culture and artistic heritage - I have a feeling this may be somewhat vague. Is this diversity in a specific way - racial, ethnic, tribal - or did they just want to represent "regional culture and artistic heritage" in general?
 * Delia's ceramics pay homage to Chinese ceramics - To me, "pay homage" may also be vague. If it's a specific honour, say "...honours Chinese ceramics". If it's merely inspired by Chinese ceramics, say that instead.
 * crafted by hand by the artists themselves - Sometimes, wording is unnecessarily clunky. Here, you may say "hand-crafted by the artists" ("themselves" is not needed unless you're explicitly saying other artwork is mechanically crafted or is handed over to a contractor).
 * so the various independent components of the work remain thematically united - Similarly, you can just say the artwork has a common theme.
 * 14 glass plates strategically positioned in the station - "Strategically positioned" reads like public relations talk to me. If these are positioned in specific locations (based on their setting), you should say that instead.
 * to blend well with the orange walls of the station - Again, you can say "to blend with"/"to complement"/etc. "Well" is subjective and, though it may have been the artist's intent, in practice this may not be the case.

These are my initial comments, looking at the Art section briefly. In general, I would make sure that sentences aren't worded in a way that might be considered subjective or opinionated. I may take a further look later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Any further comments? I wish to renominate it and try for a second time.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see anything out of place on a second glance, but I may have to look later to see if there's anything missing coverage-wise. So far though it seems like a pretty well-rounded article. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)