Talk:Kent Ridge MRT station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nkon21 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I have probably travelled through this station 1,000 times when I was at NUS haha. Review coming soon. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) 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:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Fixes

 * Some sources are missing authors. The official website names should be written in the citations, not the url. Ex. "www.lta.gov.sg" → Land Transport Authority
 * STECS → Shanghai Tunnel Engineering Co Singapore
 * One-North → one-north or vice versa, letter case just needs to be consistent throughout the article
 * on 8 October that year → on 8 October of that year
 * a multimedia work Poetry Mix-Up by Mixed Reality Lab of NUS is displayed at this station → Poetry Mix-Up, a multimedia work installed by Mixed Reality Lab of NUS, is displayed at this station
 * Commuters at the station could send an SMS to generate a poem, and the poem would be displayed on a screen situated at the station’s lift shaft → Commuters at the station are able to generate a poem via a SMS message, which will then be displayed on a screen situated at the station's lift shaft
 * The artwork is intended for commuters to be more aware of their surroundings apart from their phones while reviving poetic expression → The artwork installation is intended to remind commuters to be more aware of their surroundings especially when using mobile devices, while at the same time aiming to revive poetic expression

The article is not long overall so these should be quick fixes. Best, ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  22:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

addressed above comments. As for one-north vs One-North, the first mention was when it still kept the capitalisation, until they dropped it.--05:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I just slightly tweaked the prose; passing now as all of my concerns have been addressed. Good job. ɴᴋᴏɴ21  ❯❯❯  talk  14:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)