Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Woodleigh MRT station/archive1

Woodleigh MRT station

 * Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

My 4th FAC. This article is about another Singapore metro station which had a rather brief yet interesting history, since it was mothballed for quite a long time even after it was completed. I hope for a quick and successful review.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:SGMRT-LRT map.svg —I assume this map is based on some blank svg map such as File:Singapore location map (main island).svg? If so, it should be listed in the image description. Also, what is the source for the route lines pictured on the map?
 * The first image sandwiches with the infobox. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm now asking (the original uploader of the map) about it. About the entrance image sandwiching, in the GA review the reviewer preferred it to be on the left, given it's just a short article. But is it preferable to just stack it on the right of prose instead? ZKang123 (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have updated the license accordingly. Map was first uploaded years ago when I was not yet familiar with copyright policies. My newer maps complies with correct licenses. MRT routes are from the same source. Seloloving (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright I just decided to move the image to the right of the infobox and move it down a little. If that's preferable. @Buidhe ZKang123 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * At present, I would say there's still sandwiching. An alternative to consider is reducing the length of the infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Just because there's a field for it, does not mean it should be filled. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To make things easier I decided to remove the image, since there's another similar image under station details. Also removed some details and parameters, largely uncited information, from the infobox. ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Buidhe Anything else besides that image? Have decided to remove it. ZKang123 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * IR is a pass (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass
Spot checks:
 * "On 18 April 2017, Woodleigh station was closed for about three hours after a suspicious substance was found in various areas in the station. At 1:49 pm, SBS Transit announced that all trains would skip Woodleigh station due to a "security incident", though the station reopened at 4:20 pm after police established the substance to be baking flour" - all checks out. It would be good to know what happened to the people who were arrested here, given they seem to have been guilty of being really dumb rather than anything sinister - e.g. where they convicted?
 * They were fined S$1000. Updated information.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Woodleigh station will also serve the developing Bidadari public housing estate" - checks out, but can something more specific than 'developing' be added here given the source is from 2019? (e.g. when is the development expected to be complete?)
 * To be honest, the government authorities have not yet given a very specific timeline, though some housing projects (rather far from the station) have been completed. See --ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The station is next to the site of a future bus interchange, part of an integrated commercial and residential development that will be the estate's town centre" - checks out
 * "The platforms are wheelchair-accessible. A tactile system, consisting of tiles with rounded or elongated raised studs," - I can't see where this station is specifically referred to in the source. If this is true of all stations on the line, please tweak the text to reflect this.
 * Also stated in SBS station info source. Made an additional reference and added that it applies to all NEL stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " Dedicated routes connect the station entrances to the platforms" - seems unclear?
 * Dedicated tactile routes.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The artist intended her work to be a "snapshot" of Singapore's urban life" - not supported by the sources, which do not attribute this to the artist.
 * Well, I'm not exactly sure, but given the artist most likely written that description, I attributed it to the artist.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem justified. Stick to what sources support. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright reworded it to as what the source says. ZKang123 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No close paraphrasing, and good use appears to have been made of the available sources, all of which are reliable and suitable. I'm a bit surprised that there are no non-government published books on the Singapore MRT that can be consulted here though? Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, there aren't other official sources on the station design. The LTA usually makes publications related to our transport network.--10:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No-one has ever written a book or website that meets WP:RS on this topic, despite the huge number of such works in other countries? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First off, it's not really a significant station. There is SGTrains and Land Transport Guru but these are user-based fancruft blogs which cannot be used (and also doesn't add much). ZKang123 (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Update 22 Mar 22: @Nick-D Ok I did try to search up for more independent sources, but most were just passing mentions, and nothing much that really adds to the article. Again, Woodleigh is not that of a significant station that would warrant much attention outside of Singapore. I did try to contact DPA Architects (the architectural firm behind the station) for further details, but so far they have not replied. ZKang123 (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for checking. The lack of a secondary literature on the MRT seems surprising, but I did find books on Singapore's history to be surprisingly thin on the ground when I've visited there (including in the huge bookstore on Orchard Road). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So is it a pass for source review or are there other concerns I have missed out? ZKang123 (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, pass Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Serial support

 * "underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North East line (NEL) in Bidadari, Singapore." -- because it is should be in the topic sentence.
 * I rather keep it as such, otherwise the sentence will appear longer and difficult to read.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Link Stamford American International School -- note also "American".
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "when the stations on the NEL were revealed" -- "when the NEL's projected route was first proposed", avoids repetition of "stations", also tighter.
 * Well, the route of the NEL was drafted in 1995, then the stations were only confirmed in 1996. Shortened instead to "Woodleigh was first announced along with the 16 NEL stations in March 1996."--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "to the lack of nearby developments at the time" -- "to the lack of local development".
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Following more developments in the area, the station opened on 20 June 2011" -- "It eventually opened in June 2011". Not sure if emphasising the development is necessary, it seems repetitive, and there's no need to be day-specific about the last date when you've rounded to the month on the previous two occasions.
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Like most stations on the NEL" -- "As with most of the line's stations": slightly longer, but saves repetition of "stations".
 * Done.ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Link Singapore Civil Defence Force?
 * Done.ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if April Ng will ever be blue-linked?
 * Maybe? I'm not so sure. Red-linked anyway.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "To minimise operating costs, Woodleigh was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations".
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Link urban development.
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Originally, the station was planned to be built only as a shell structure...to install station surfaces within a shell structure." -- this needs clarifying; you've just said it wasn't planned to be built at all? Also, it uses curious grammar (also note the misspelling of shell).
 * "was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations". The station shell structure would be built, but initially not fully (i.e. probably without station facilities but at least a structure from which to build on). They decided to build the entire the station instead.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "The contract for the construction, and 2.5 km".
 * "Wayss & Freytag AG, Econ Corporation and Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Ltd" -- AG, Co. Ltd are unnecessary.
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "and a vehicular viaduct".
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Though the station was fully equipped and ready for operations" -- by when? There seems some confusion throughout as to what was and what wasn't opened with or without the NEL as a whole? (I'm sure you know, of course, but the WP:READER has to have it pretty much spelt out to them!)
 * June 2003, like all NEL stations. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " continued to monitor development plans in the area to assess whether it was feasible to open the station." -- "carried out feasibility studies for the station's opening"
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "the confused commuters" -- passengers, as commuters is used three times.
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " causing public alarm" -- if this is a quote, it needs an inline citation.
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Could link public nuisance.
 * At some point in the article Mount Vernon probably needs a link.
 * You mean Mount Vernon, Singapore. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "that will be the estate's town centre" -- was intended to be, per MOS:CRYSTAL.
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Link Human decontamination/Dry toilet.
 * Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Edinburgh -- University of Edinburgh?
 * Actually she used to work as a printmaker in Edinburgh... Added that they were her colleagues. Done.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "In the process of creating the work...as an artist and teacher" -- Personally, I think this is unnecessary cruft, but if you prefer to keep it then it should be a quote and attributed inline (otherwise it sounds as if Wikipedia is stating this as a fact. No: we're stating her beliefs, and as such, they should come from her, not us).
 * Alright removed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I note the only photo of the exterior is the one prior to its opening; are there any of it afterwards?
 * Well, there are, but I don't know where to place them. Maybe under station details section?--ZKang123 (talk)
 * , see this gallery style as an example of what you could do, with a caption underneath, and of course you'd want to play with the location. But, yeah.  SN54129  19:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will try get a better image of one of the entrances later on. ZKang123 (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw I have already added the new image @Serial Number 54129 ZKang123 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice article, thanks.  SN54129  15:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi SN, not asking for an explicit support or oppose but are you satisfied your points have been actioned? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder,, and apologies to ZKang123 for forgetting—I meant to support this; everything that I suggested has been attended to, ''mutatis mutandis.  SN54129  21:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis
Comin' from Discord. Images look good, but the infobox image needs an alt text. Prose comments TBD.  Gerald WL  06:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just came back to this art.! Saw the alt text, so Image pass. Now onto the article.


 * Support.  Gerald WL  18:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I've copyedited; please revert if I've screwed anything up.
 * Suggest making it clearer at the start of the history section that what Mah Bow Tan announced in 1996 was a new MRT line, the NEL, not just 16 stations. To a local it's probably obvious, but to a Londoner or a New Yorker 16 stations might just be an extension to an existing line.
 * So, a brief description of the line's history as the background?--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. What you've done looks fine, though you have a missing word: "approved by the in"?  And perhaps rephrase the second half as "received government approval in January 1996".  "To be built" is implied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck. I removed "by the" as there was nothing after it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the North East MRT line article, it seems there are seventeen operational stations, and that only NE2 is reserved, so I would have expected the announcement in 1996 to be of seventeen stations, including Woodleigh, but the article says "Woodleigh station was among the 16...". I see Buangkok was announced but not opened, so that can't be the difference.  What am I missing?
 * The other station, Punggol Coast, is still under construction. There are only 16 operational stations at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "the station would only operate once future developments in the area were completed": suggest "the station would begin operating once the area around it was sufficiently developed", since I doubt that "completed" is strictly what the condition was.
 * Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Land Transport Authority and operator SBS Transit carried out feasibility studies for the station's opening": when?
 * Sources state that both continued to access the feasibility even when the station remained closed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there was a fifteen year gap and if there's any more information about the timing it would good to add. Does the source say they refreshed the feasibility studies yearly?  Every five years?  What does "continued" mean?  Does it mean that they carried out feasibility studies before the 1996 decision?  Or just that they did more than one study afterwards?  If the source is not precise about this, I accept we can't be either; what does the source actually say? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From (2007): The Woodleigh Station was not opened together with the rest of the North East Line (NEL) stations in 2003 because of the lack of residential developments in the stations immediate vicinity. To-date, there are still limited developments surrounding the area. The LTA is constantly monitoring the pace of developments in the areas surrounding the stations which would in turn affect the ridership for the station. At the same time, the LTA is also working closely with land use agencies to see if developments in the area can be accelerated. And during the announcement of the station's opening: We have been monitoring the developments around the Woodleigh Station for a while now. With more developments coming up and an increase in passenger flow through from the Circle Line, the time is now right to open it.
 * Neither the LTA or SBS are really specific about how they access the feasibility. I also tried to search up anything in between, but there's nothing significant.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say "feasibility study" if this is the source. This just says they're keeping an eye on the developments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I just remove the sentence on LTA and SBS doing feasibility studies. ZKang123 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The opening came after several new developments nearby had been completed": do we have any dates? Can we combine this information with the mention of "new developments in the area" a couple of sentences earlier?
 * Moved the earlier sentence closer with this sentence.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I read the sources, and I see they're unspecific, but as it stands the paragraph reads clumsily. In January Tan speculates that Woodleigh will open "to serve new developments in the area", and two sentences later we say the opening came "after several new developments nearby had been completed", but we don't connect these two explicitly.  I understand that it would be synthesis to assume Tan is referring to exactly the same developments as the later articles, but it is strange to act as though these are independent pieces of information.  One option would be just to cut the sentence starting "The opening came...", as it adds very little information.  If you don't do that then I think the paragraph needs reworking to make the information flow more naturally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sentence cut as suggested ZKang123 (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 to 5 minutes depending on peak hours": this doesn't make sense. What does "depending on peak hours" mean?  Is it no more than 5 minutes at offpeak?  Do you mean "Train frequencies vary from 2.5 at peak hours to 5 minutes during off-peak hours"?
 * Removed "depending on peak hours".--ZKang123 (talk)
 * That helps. I clicked through to the source; I can't get the archived link to come up, but the original link still works.  It shows me a map but I don't see how to verify the train frequency from that page -- is there a link I'm missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You have to find Woodleigh on the map and click on the station. ZKang123 (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That worked. I'd suggest you add text to that effect to the citation, since it's not obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "the work shows the future generations people's lives in the 2000s": I don't know what this means.
 * Show future generations "what life was like in the 2000s". Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I made it "the work is intended to show" since I think that's what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Intending to center her commission around people" is one of those almost meaningless phrases that gets used about public art; I would cut it, or use a direct quote from Ng to show her intentions.
 * Cut.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "Ng recalled the positive reception she received when giving a photoengraved piece of work to her friend as a farewell gift. This experience prompted her to use photo etching for this work." This is stilted. I would make this "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion because a friend of hers had been delighted by a photoengraved work Ng had given her", if that is supported by the sources.
 * "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion due to the positive reception she received when giving her friend a photoengraved piece of work as a farewell gift". Otherwise, it will be too close to the source material.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK if we can't use that exact phrasing, but we still have to write naturally. What's the exact phrasing in the source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How can the artwork guide commuters? It's visible in two photos in the article and in neither case is it apparent how it can guide anyone. And given that, what does the next sentence, "The idea of..." mean?
 * I think it's how the way the commuters were facing, which directs them to the platforms, as per what the source says. Also, it was something outlined by LTA when they commissioned the art pieces.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this should be rephrased to indicate that this was the intention of the artwork, not that it necessarily succeeded in that intention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need the details about how Slow Motion was built -- the acetate paper, and the last paragraph. This is a short article and it seems more detail than is needed.  Or is April Ng a very significant artist in Singapore, so that this is a significant fact about the station?
 * Well, she's pretty significant given she was commissioned to do the artwork... plus it makes the article pretty comprehensive.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to cut mention of her or the artwork completely, but half dozen sentences about the constructions is a lot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright shortened further.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally I think there's some less than fluent phrasing in the article. The "Public artwork" section has several examples; "a specific type of acetate" is vague; "The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists" sounds like an attempt to avoid close paraphrasing; and I left a similar comment above about the sentence about why Ng chose photo-engraving. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are the photos of the relevant pages on the artwork
 * P114
 * P115
 * P117
 * ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for those photos -- that's very helpful. Some comments on the "Public artwork" section, now that I've read the Tan article: That's everything I have. I'm going to collapse the comments about this section I made above because they're no longer relevant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "the work is intended to show the future generations what life was like in the 2000s". This phrasing makes it sound as if this is the primary intention of the work.  The source is Ng saying that "in twenty to thirty years time, people will look at our clothes...and think, 'That's what people looked like around 2000'".  This is just a comment by Ng about how the art will be perceived, not a statement of her main intention.
 * "Ng chose to use photo etching for Slow Motion; this was due to the positive reception she received when giving her friend a photoengraved piece of work as a farewell gift". Suggest ""Ng had previously used photo etching to make pictures of friends of hers as farewell gifts for them; her friends had loved them, and she decided to use the technique again for Slow Motion" which makes it clearer it was multiple people, and that the images were of her friends themselves, and I think reads more smoothly.
 * "After amassing photos of pedestrians, workers at the station and LTA staff, Ng arranged the photos in such a way that the movement and direction of pedestrians guide commuters either to the platforms or out of the station. The idea of depicting people in motion fulfilled LTA's request for artists to incorporate the practical wayfinding aspect in their work." I don't see in the source that she took photos of pedestrians; it says "the team working on Woodleigh station, LTA's staff as well as her family and friends".  I also don't think we can say she succeeded in her artistic goal; we have to talk about intent.  Suggest: "Ng used photos that showed the diversity of Singapore's culture, representing people of all races and ages.  She took the photos herself, using LTA staff and the Woodleigh station construction crew as subjects, along with photos of her friends and her husband and son.  The LTA wanted the Art-in-Transit works to have a "wayfinding" element to help guide commuters towards the platforms or out of the station, and Ng attempted to achieve this by making sure that some of the photos were of people moving in the approriate direction."  I think you need the cite for this (whether you use my wording or not) to span two pages as the paragraph in the source crosses a page boundary.
 * "Zinc was chosen as the figures could be reproduced better on the plates and also reflects the architectural materials used for the station". Suggest "Ng chose zinc instead of copper because the photos she took reproduced better in zinc.  The choice of zinc fit in well with the station's design, which used zinc in the roof materials."  There's no implication in the source that the fact that zinc fit in with the station's architectural design was a factor in Ng's choice.
 * "The plates were degreased before a layer of polymer film was laminated on the plates. Under ultraviolet light, the film was exposed to the enlarged copies of the photos, and the plates reproduced the images." This technical information seems out of place to me; this is information about how photo etching works in general. We wouldn't talk about how oil painting works if she had worked in oils.  What I think we can do is talk about this elements of her work that were specific to this installation -- the humidity issue, for example, which I see you've cut.  You originally had "Due to Singapore's humidity, the polymer films kept sticking to the plates, which made them difficult to adjust; her colleagues and experts in Edinburgh suggested spraying the film and plates with water, which worked"  I think we should cut the two sentence you have now, and replace them with something that focuses on the humidity issue, giving enough technical information to understand it but no more.  Suggest "Singapore's high humidity caused problems with the photo engraving process; to create the images, a polymer film had to be applied to the zinc plates, and the humidity caused the film to stick to the plates immediately, so that it could not be adjusted.  Ng was able to resolve the problem by spraying the film and plates with water before applying the film."  It's tempting to mention that she got this advice from Edinburgh but I think it requires yet more explanation that takes us too far off topic.
 * For the first point, then I removed that comment since that's not her main intention.
 * Alright reworded as per you suggested. Though I prefer maintaining formality and wrote "the gifts were well-received" instead of "her friends had loved them".
 * Fixed accordingly.
 * Fixed accordingly.
 * Fixed accordingly.
 * ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Support and a note for the coords: the wording for the last paragraph is almost entirely mine; in a long article I wouldn't bother to point this out, but it's ten to fifteen percent of this article. I don't think that prevents me from supporting, but I want to be transparent about it just in case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from KN2731
For transparency, I was asked at WP:Discord to look at this. I don't really have much to add with the extensive prose reviews above. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Youngberg Terrace and Avon Park aren't mentioned anywhere outside the lead.
 * Why's April Ng linked? Potentially notable?
 * "Woodleigh was not planned" ... "It was originally planned" – repetitive, replace one with "intended" or similar
 * "parliament session" – capitalise P since it's referring specifically to the Parliament of Singapore; for generic use "parliamentary session" is more appropriate
 * "The station is next to the site of a future integrated commercial and residential development Woodleigh Residences part of the estate's future town centre, which will include a future bus interchange" – sentence structure seems a little odd. Try adding a comma before and a dash after Woodleigh Residences?
 * Fixed per suggested. ZKang123 (talk) 09:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on prose. Comprehensiveness and structure seem ok but I haven't checked closely. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Query to FAC coords
Am I allowed to nominate another page for FAC? This nomination has 4 prose supports, as well as an image and source review. ZKang123 (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)