Talk:Outram Park MRT station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GA Review: First assessment
Review forthcoming. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

First assessment completed. Placing the review on hold for the nominator to fix the issues noted below. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * Copy edit completed by reviewer.
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Copy edit completed by reviewer.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * Although this passes under the GA guidelines, some of the citations can (and should) be cleaned up by using citation templates.
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Several of the sources cited are not RS because they are primary sources. Additionally, t T he "Services" subsection links to a dynamic map of the MRT system; is there a way to link to a stable version (e.g., a PDF timetable)? Additionally, I noted one failed verification in the article.  See discussion below. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * c. (OR):
 * As noted, several of the sources are primary sources. See discussion below. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Checked using Earwig's tool.
 * 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.:
 * Checked edit history and talk page.
 * 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):
 * Checked copyright tags.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Checked edit history and talk page.
 * 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):
 * Checked copyright tags.
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are informative.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/fail:
 * Pass/fail:

Discussion after first assessment
Creating this section to discuss the initial assessment and any edits made to fix up the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the sources cited above meet WP:PRIMARY because "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". However, upon reviewing the sources, several of the statements in the article appear to be WP:SYNTH or not substantiated by the source cited. For example, the article states,"On 29 August 2012, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that Outram Park station would interchange with the proposed Thomson Line", and cites to. That source, however, does not say anything about the Outram Park station. I've marked some additional failed verifications in the article. Finally, the art section should definitely have nonprimary sources as sources by the Metro system are biased. Has anyone reviewed the murals or other art projects? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Courtesy ping to @Brachy0008. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so, but I found a non-primary source and I’m not really sure if it should be added [1 ] (It’s FourSquare.com)  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  00:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:UGC. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ok  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  03:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I solved all the issues I could find. Is there any more?  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  08:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you find a non-primary source about Mata Mata? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I can’t. I’ll delete it anyway.  Brachy 08  (Talk)  (Contribs)  01:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will pass the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)