Talk:Rochor MRT station/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments
Rochor station was my 'local' station when I last visited Singapore, having been completed since my first visit only a year before, so I'm interested to read this article. I have the following comments: Thanks for the initial review so far. Will work on these outstanding issues.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Something has gone wrong with the currency template in the first paragraph of the 'Construction' section
 * Yeah I have noticed. I am unsure how to fix it. Maybe I will hide it, for now, until the template has been fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "and targeted to be completed by 2015" - was a specific date in 2015 set as the target?
 * From the source announcement, there is no specific date, only the year.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Ministry of Manpower has praised the construction project, explaining that it has managed to accomplished zero accidents " - did the Ministry or the companies involved achieve zero accidents?
 * The contractor. Added detail.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * " Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew announced that the DTL2 would be opened earlier,[7] with works completed by 95%" - this is unclear - earlier than what, and what does 95% mean here?
 * 95% of the works have been completed, I mean.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The station operates between 5:55 am and 12:24 am daily,[14] with headways of 2.75 to 4.5 minutes." - note when this is as of
 * "to the education institution of LASALLE College of the Arts" - needs copy editing
 * Removed "education institution" since there is only one, and from the name it's pretty obv--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it all caps or sentence caps? The article uses both. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From having stayed in this area, an interesting feature is that there seem to be an (un)usual number of stations nearby. For instance, Rochor station is only about a 10 minute walk to the next two stations on the line. Is there a reason this part of Singapore is so well served?
 * I can't really comment much on this. There aren't official sources stating why, but it has mentioned that the station density in the central area is getting denser. I wonder if it is constructive to add that the station is close enough to Jalan Besar for DTL passengers to transfer over. source--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Feng's book should be listed as a 'work consulted' or similarly, given that it's a major source for the article rather than 'further reading'
 * Can provide examples in other articles about this? So I change the header to "work consulted", or smth?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See pretty much any high quality article. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is all very positive about this station. Have there been any criticisms of it? Has patronage been what was expected?
 * Well, there arent really any official published sources on criticism of the station. I also would wish to give some balance, but there arent really any.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some images have problems:
 * I can't see the Creative Commons release on the source of File:DT13 Rochor MRT construction DSC 0011.jpg
 * Ditto File:DT13 Rochor MRT construction DSC 0011.jpg
 * Here it stated that the aerial construction photos are released under creative commons].--ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All sources used look reliable and appropriate.
 * Spot checks:
 * Reference 2: Checks out, but the wording is much too closely paraphrased (and is close to being a copy and paste)
 * "The Rochor Canal, originally located in the middle of Rochor Canal Road and Sungei Road, had to be shifted as it ran through the construction site" - reference 4 also checks out, but the wording is uncomfortably close to what the source says.
 * "The site has a layer of soft marine clay 30 metres (98 ft) thick[5] with the "consistency of peanut butter"." - ditto
 * "the station was intended to be a model of how modern transport infrastructure can be practical and aesthetically pleasing with the ability to fuse into the background" - checks out, but also closely paraphrased.
 * As all four spot checks resulted in close paraphrasing, I'm leaning towards failing the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am unsure on how to rephrase these, but I am seeking help. Will rephrase these soon.---ZKang123 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, as all the spot checks are failed, I am expecting that you will review all the article's other text, and make other adjustments to avoid close paraphrasing given it's unlikely that the problems are restricted to some examples I picked at random. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to note, as all the spot checks are failed, I am expecting that you will review all the article's other text, and make other adjustments to avoid close paraphrasing given it's unlikely that the problems are restricted to some examples I picked at random. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. Rephrased and reworded the article. What are your thoughts?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Further spot checks:
 * "The artwork is intended to contrast and probe into the dual reflections of Singapore's youths: living through a world of technology while having sentimentality for tradition and history" - very lightly paraphrased from the source
 * " The objects were then drawn in three ways: simple pencil drawing, mono-printing and modern digital drawing" - ditto

I'm failing this GAN as a result. This is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Assessment
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. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * All four spot initial checks returned close paraphrasing. Two further spot checks also had close paraphrasing.
 * 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Two images may not be suitable for use
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failing due to close paraphrasing concerns. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Two images may not be suitable for use
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failing due to close paraphrasing concerns. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Failing due to close paraphrasing concerns. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)