Talk:Canberra MRT station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra MRT Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706170425/http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=38dc4ca3-5e70-4bf8-97bc-87f78e6303e7 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=38dc4ca3-5e70-4bf8-97bc-87f78e6303e7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed a previous edit

I guess the mention to aust capital canberra is based on this http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/singapore-calls-new-mrt-station-canberra-20140628-zspsl.html

which i personally think it is written based on aust POV of the times, which may not be a little compliant to WP:NPOV.

well it is named after the area canberra, then canberra is named after canberra , aust , yes, but the mrt is not directly named after it. please read article carefully

plus for NS 12 , there is no case for NS 13 ... as it is just can be considered trivia, can put in another section is necessary, but better to be linked to main NSL article

Just my 2 cents, opinions much thanked Quek157 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: I think it is ok to mention that it is named after the Australian Canberra but there should also be a mention of the Singaporean Canberra. Regarding the Station code, I don't really get what you are trying to say... Hope my opinion helps. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

hi. 1.02 editor do see the edit i undone to get the context and I am getting consensus for undoing that edit. I am also giving my detailed reply to the ip address editer to why I undone the context. I also not sure what ns 13 means but that edit mentioned that Canberra should be ns13 if not changed of mrt map. do reference to the edit Quek157 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: I have looked at the edit, and reasoned that the IP was trying to say that if the station had a code on the old system map it would have been N13 (13th station north of Raffles Place). The current code is  NS12  (12th station on the NSL). Hope this explains. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

shall we put both as a trivia or interesting fact session with proper citations Quek157 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

added named after canberra with 2 sources Quek157 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we try this article for GA

@1.02 editor and KN2731: Hi editors, if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanglan_Road_station and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryvandsh%C3%B8iden_(station) can be GA class, I don't think after all these editions this is far apart . can we try to push this a little and I can help to address doubts --Quek157 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: preferably I'll nominate when it opens but trying it now is fine. Also, KN2731 do you want to be a co-nominator if we do get this nomination through? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor and KN2731: I think then we will have more information, this I agree. But really when I went through the entire list of rail station GA articles, I realised that this is very close to the quality (albeit some organizational changes are needed as well as condensation). I have trawled the entire net for information and this is the best I can get for this station, so I think it is slightly ready. The issues that can be identified 1. more pictures (but not all GA articles have so much pictures, they get 1 / 2 only). 2. more condensation (as most have only few paragraphs - just do not have subheading). Otherwise I did not see any issue. 3. most GA articles have a layout of platform (I know it is removed due to prematurity) but it is not a must. 4. We may sync with this proposed layout for the text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Article_structure). Otherwise, I see no issue for this page not as par with the rest. We must be aware this is just a station not a line, so quality factors differ much, plus importance =/= quality, a low importance can also be GA. Once open, more pictures / news can be provided and then we may then push to FA? Do note that I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Featured_content as a guide. It can be a short as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestgrensa_(station) and then GA. --Quek157 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

just saying, station layouts were removed as per a discussion at the notice board for failing WP:NOTGUIDE. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

noted --Quek157 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: ok then, do you want to nominate the article? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor:wait a while...i am trying to upload somemore pics + streamlining things. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) I will rewrite the article based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Article_structure.

@1.02 editor and KN2731:In retrospect, the previous few GA I noted are really old in GA review, as it is 2011, a 2017 GA article of station is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenchurch_Street_railway_station which this page still have somewhere to go...so will hold the entire GA nomination but will still make edits --Quek157 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the most pressing issues with the article at the moment are compliance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations#Article structure, some grammar issues, and reference style, the latter two of which I can fix. Also length is not really an issue; from WP:GACR: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

will see how to edit up to compliance Quek157 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor and KN2731: I tried my personal best to address compliance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations#Article structure as closely as possible. Edited grammar (pardon me cause I never gotten above a B3 for O level English and C for A level GP) - so try to help if possible. Reference style also do help if possible. Else I think we are good to go --Quek157 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Do a B class check first (NOTE: Self check)

• The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) is optional.

(Comment): Some redundant references can be taken off but mostly in place

• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.

(Comment): Meet I think

• The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.

(Comment): Meet I think

• The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.

(Comment): Meet I think (but may still have minor errors)

• The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.

(Comment): Meet I think - I am trying to insert a map (but now still blocked)

• The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

(Comment): Meet I think So now is just a borderline "B" article. Appreciate help to address all the rest and then we can then do GA. Thanks! --Quek157 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment: the current photos in the gallery should be removed once the station opens, and replaced with photos of the built station.1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor and KN2731: I think the can keep one or two under relevant sections but yes, new pics are needed --Quek157 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• comment: since my English is not of a high standard (and as you mentioned neither is yours) I recommend getting Simeone to ce the article. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor and KN2731: I looked through peer review, none have any interest on transport. I guess we have to check the grammar ourselves. --Quek157 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: do you still want GA? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

can you check the new user edit. I can't revert due to general 1rr. reason for including Chinese name is that it is reflected on ura official site as per the reference. with this kind of edit and go through the track record of the user also. I don't mind ga but with this current hot potato issue we need to settle first ---Quek157 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is true that all the other stations do not have Chinese names in the lead, and the new editor is correct. also, i thought this page was under 3rr not 1rr? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

fine. I'll also remove the entire link. and can someone conominate with me. thanks a lot Quek157 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

to also be crystal clear to the new user this case is substantiated due to norms. there's should be edit summary and especially you are a new user I'm not expecting reverts. I agreed to remove the Chinese name is also in prep of ga which this will be an issue. but that doesn't mean all pages cannot have Chinese name. Quek157 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I nominated the article already, we hope to wait for news and see what improvements we should made if any. hope all can help. =) --Quek157 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: B class article now?

Instead of GA, is this a B class article now? I am hoping for 3rd party review. I think first B class then GAN will be better? --Quek157 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

you can try WP:TWP/A but it is largely inactive

will do --Quek157 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, hope for news --Quek157 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

recent vandal by user may make B class utnenable for now --Quek157 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey editors! I have heavily modified the article to ensure a balance between formality in its presentation for readers (Not too detailed) as well as spelling out useful details that transport enthusiast might want to know (Not too general). I'm hopeful this page will push to an A grade as it undergoes review again. Additionally, please archive references so that dead links can still be readable in future, which I have already done so. Yenwei (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

images on commons

I noted with thanks that 1.02 editor moved gallery to commons . do note that all model pics are in danger of removal due to copyright infringement. I don't think it will affect as I can still add as external image . just fyi. I agree to deletion as no way hdb will give orts permission Quek157 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

update: argued for stay per SG copyright laws --Quek157 (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Managed to keep. (2nd deletion fight off, first in 2007 for CSD) --Quek157 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canberra MRT station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SounderBruce (talk · contribs) 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

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:

   See below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Layout wise: this article has several short subsections that should be combined and reordered. Long term, the design section should be moved out of the history and made time-neutral. The Notable places section is completely unnecessary in its current form, which advertises two nearby developments but neglects to include information on the surrounding area as a whole.

    Done --Quek157 (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

2. 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Several citations include all-caps titles or other inconsistencies. Ref 24 has a bare URL in its title.

    removed Ref 24 was just a File that can be found in ref 23 so I removed. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig shows some similar sentences to a news article. The paraphrasing is far too close for my liking.

    paraphrased 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    paraphrased see [1], if Canberra station ,the station and between Sembawang and Yishun stations, are COPYVIO then I don't really know what to do already. Quek157 (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Missing content in several places.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See below.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The prose and layout needs a lot of work, to say the least, and I don't think the authors should be nominating future GANs without going through peer review or an outside copyedit. I also think this nomination may be premature, especially since the opening is fairly soon in the future. SounderBruce 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Infobox

• If there isn't information about the bicycle and disabled access, it should be omitted. Taxi connections are also unnecessary.
  •  Done the bycycle and ADA is confirmed, just that the infobox mentioned that it was under construction (which is true).

Lead* DoneQuek157 (talk) 14

54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Canberra MRT station (NS12) is a future elevated Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station on the North South Line (NSL), and is located along Canberra Link in Sembawang, Singapore.
  • The second part of this sentence is a bit awkward and should be split out.
    •  Done1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• It will serve commuters living in the eastern part of Sembawang which include private developments (both landed property and condominiums) as well as numerous new and upcoming Housing and Development Board (HDB) public housing developments.
  • Serving "commuters" is a vague and the presence of private and public development goes without saying. Is this really important enough to be included in the lead?
    •  Done removed as per above Quek157 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The planning and design sections of the article should be represented in the lead.
  •  Done added, hope is enough Quek157 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

History – Planning  Done Quek157 (talk) 11

28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• The first section of the North-South Line opened in 1987 and is Singapore’s first MRT line.
  • Two instances of "first" here may confuse readers. Also note the use of a curly apostrophe, which must be removed per MOS.
    •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The stations from Yew Tee to Yishun were opened in 1996 as part of the Woodlands Extension.
  • Should mention what this extension has to do with Canberra station.
    •  Done by 1.02editor Further edited by --Quek157 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Consider moving the fourth sentence in the second paragraph ("Both master plans mentioned the possible...") earlier to provide context before the reader gets bored of the plans.
  •  DoneQuek157 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Once it's established that the plans were published in 2013, the year does not need to be repeated. Also, is it really necessary to include the exact date of each plan's publication? Cutting it down to the month would make for smoother reading.
  •  DoneQuek157 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• What was the result of the completed feasibility study? Explain it to the reader.
  •  DoneQuek157 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Shortly after on 1 August 2014" needs a comma.
  •  Done reworded Quek157 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The last paragraph needs to be re-ordered and cleaned up. The use of "along"/"alongside" twice within a short paragraph is a red flag.
  • {{done} Quek157 (talk) 11:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• External images box should not use semi-bare URLs (e.g. [1] ).
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

History – Design * DoneQuek157 (talk) 12

01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Architects should be shortened down to simple names. Drop the "Pte. Ltd" if the article title does so.
  •  Done --Quek157 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "This is to reflect" is not a good transition phrase.
•  Done - changed accordingly Quek157 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "and as such features like wave-like" is a confusing jumble of words.
•  Done - removed, the roof does not seem wave like anyway, advertial also (thanks for pointed out) Quek157 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "For natural light to enter the station, the sides of the station will take on a glazed facade."
  • Stations don't "take on" a facade, but rather have possession.
    •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done Further ammended to materials , the original text is really poor from a design firm. --Quek157 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "the new housing estates across Canberra Link"
  • Explain what these housing estates are and how the entrance will link to them.
    •  Done I have entirely deleted it, as it should be in the Location of Station, shifted this piece of info there to prevent duplicate Quek157 (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• What are "linkways" and "linkbridge"s? These aren't standard terms.
  •  Done change linkway to covered pathways, linkbridge to elevated footbridge. These are Singapore terms (sorry for international audience) --Quek157 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Use of the word "commuters" sounds promotional.
  •  Done used "passengers" --Quek157 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "City-bound" should be switched to a directional to avoid confusion.
  •  Done to Marina South Pier --Quek157 (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• No citation given for the third paragraph.
•  Done can't find, therefore remove as per wikipedia is not trivia, any material must be verifiable. Quek157 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The station platform is not the unique bit, but the station's layout is.
•  Done as per above Quek157 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Use {{convert}} on that 72-metre statistic, for the benefit of international readers.
  •  Done --Quek157 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Explain why the crossover is being built at Canberra specifically, and why it wasn't included before.
  •  Done due to new station , more economical I think but no sources, so did not put Quek157 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

    Actually since there was already a crossover north of YIS, there is no reason for another one in between YIS and SBW. With the construction of Canberra, they now have a reason to throw in another crossover track North of Canberra (between CAN and SBW). Source is at SGtrains and it is not considered a reliable source. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "This helps" needs to be replaced with a more encyclopedic term.
  •  changed 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

History – Construction * Done --Quek157 (talk) 09

17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• "China State Construction Engineering Corporation (Singapore)"
  • Is that "of Singapore" or the Singapore subsidiary? It's very unclear.
  •  Done Proper name is "CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION LIMITED SINGAPORE BRANCH" per [2] but modified a little to sound clearer since ltd is not there --Quek157 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Don't use the term "Singapore dollar (SGD)" in a Singapore article.
  •  Done --Quek157 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "to build the station and pre-construction work started."
  • Not grammatically correct. Switch the order of the second phrase ("and begin pre-construction work").
    •  Done --Quek157 (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Who decided that construction would be challenging? This needs attribution and perhaps a check on neutrality to avoid being promotional in tone.
• "Safe operation of the line needs to be ensured during the construction period."
  • Sounds straight out of a press release.
    •  Done with context and minister comments Quek157 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "have had implemented"
  • Choose one or the other.
    •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "such as limiting major works"
  • Work should not be plural here.
    •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "when constructing the roof" → "during construction of the roof"
  •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Additionally, LTA has also"
  • Choose one or the other.
    •  Done 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 07:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

History – Progress  Done --Quek157 (talk) 09

15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Progress section can become easily outdated. It should be merged back into the construction subsection and be prepared for post-opening prose.
  •  Done --Quek157 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "On 11 September 2017, the foundation works have been completed."
  • No need to be so specific with the date. The entire sentence is grammatically incorrect and should instead read "By September, work on the foundation had been completed" or something similar. Try to find out if the foundation had been merely placed or poured, which makes the transition to the next sentence easier.
• "Therefore, construction of platform slabs started."
  • Therefore is the incorrect word. This is also a sentence fragment that should be merged.
    •  Done foundation is piling --Quek157 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "On 19 February 2018, it was announced that as part of Singapore Budget for the Financial Year 2018 / 2019, around $46 million SGD will be used to procure additional trains for the station and it was revealed that the total project cost for the station (excluding the additional trains) is now at $228 million SGD."
  • Lots of figures that should not be tied to this specific date. Put the project budget at the beginning of the construction section, add train procurement to the fleet article instead, and don't use specific titles for generic documents like a budget.
    •  Done will like to emphasize that the 46 million is for the additional trains for this station to function and I feel it is relevant in both article (as stated in the budget statement - for Canberra Station), will lump together as project cost --Quek157 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Notable places nearby * Done Quek157 (talk) 10

05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Don't use "Notable" in the section title.  Done changed to location of station, I use this is to comply with the entire articcle structure proposed by Wikiproject trains - station . Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Subsections are completely unncessary.
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• This section would be better used to describe the area surrounding the station, with a passing mention of these two landmarks and some of their features, rather than focusing solely on them. Population, jobs, parks, schools, etc. should be given focus.
  •  Done population done, jobs done, parks done, no school except "that" private school. Quek157 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "a new generation neighbourhood centre" sounds like a press release and doesn't tell the reader anything. It would be useful to note the number of units and buildings are included in this development, or the fact that it's a public project.
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Too much detail for the Former Admiralty House, which belongs in its article.
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "Site for a private school" should be "site of a private school"
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Polyclinic links to a disambiguation page.  Done linked to General hospital 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)  Done I removed the link entirely, a polyclinic is not a hospital. Will do more to reform this section so the links will not need to be there at all. --Quek157 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Quek157 (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing content  Done except points really WP:CRYSTAL Quek157 (talk) 11

38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• What kind of transit service is there to the Canberra Lane area today? How will the bus network change when the station opens?
  •  Done public buses routes added  Not done that's really WP:CRYSTAL. Sometimes when stations opens in SG, routes are cut (rationalization - NEL), sometimes more are added. Really I cannot agree crystal balling as in Singapore, the government will not mention anything before hand. Hope you understand Quek157 (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Is there a more specific date for the station's opening?
  •  Not done There has been no official mention of a specific date, although the LTA has mentioned that it would open in 2019. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 03:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll give the nominators a few days to work on this, but even after all these comments there are still other issues to bring up. I suggest looking at existing GAs on future stations (of which I have written a few, like U District station) to learn the proper way of laying out a future-proof (or rather future-ready) article. SounderBruce 02:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

noiminator note
I will do the necessary edits asap. do pardon me for a little inaction. will do clean-up today. thanks for all the guidance. very useful --Quek157 (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I will continue soon --Quek157 (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: what's happening now? According to the checklist everything has been resolved. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I pinged him on his talkpage also not responding. Quek157 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sidenote for @SounderBruce:, can we use skyscrapercity photos for wikipedia, I know you have a lot of photos there, and may know. The singapore version have good photos for this station also. --Quek157 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The author of the image must give proper permission and license the image under a free license (Creative Commons, public domain, GDFL, etc.). The most common way of getting people to donate their images is through OTRS on Commons, which requires validation, or by changing the licenses on Flickr.

I'll be posting the rest of my comments later in the week. There is no need to repeatedly ping me, since I have this page on my watchlist. SounderBruce 03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments, part 2

While most of my points were addressed, the resulting article is still riddled with existing and new grammar issues. Some new passages are even unreferenced and read like a phoned-in school report rather than an encyclopedia entry. The point of a GA review is not to hand-hold editors until their article is up to an acceptable standard, but instead point out small mistakes that help put a final polish on the work; the number of issues listed in my above review was well above the minimum that other reviewers would use to quick-fail a nomination. In addition to the fundamental problems here, the article is likely to undergo massive changes when the station is opened, and I'm not confident it can retain GA status.

As such, I will be closing this review on criteria 1(a) and 1(b), as well as 3(b). I highly suggest that this article undergo a real copyedit from WP:GOCE or a real peer review before re-appearing at GAN. SounderBruce 00:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor and KN2731: How's your comment about this closure. I hope to hear from all of you before I comment --Quek157 (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for missing most of what's happened over the past week due to exams. I've managed a brief glance over the changes over the article though, so here's my take. To some extent I agree with SounderBruce that part of the article read like a school essay, especially at the parts failing 3B: under the construction section where the direct relevance of the calls for safety by various figures to the article is questionable, as well as the description of the crossover track where I find too much elaboration on the rail disruption, which is not remotely related to the station itself. I also see some primary sources, which are usually not recommended to be used. On the brighter side the grammar issues are fixable and I can work on that as and when I'm available. I was working on ref style before I went off for exams and I can continue that too. Moving forward, I feel we should probably wait for the station to open next year; there's no rush to get this up to GA, and it will need a large rewrite when the station does open. In addition, at that time there will likely be a slew of news reports that may be used to source new information and better source existing information. Afterwards as SounderBruce suggested we can request for a peer review and/or a copyedit if one will still be necessary. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

No matter what happens after this I would still like to thank SounderBruce for his patience, and taking time off to give such detailed comments and recommendations. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

i think we may have been a bit too optimistic when discussing this before, as with what SounderBruce said, the article does not meet 1a, 1b and 3b. Being a GA reviewer myself, i should have saw these problems beforehand and would like to sincerely apologise for overlooking this issues. moving on, i think that as what KN2731 said, we should send this to GOCE for someone to do up the article. I do understand different reviewers have different styles (with mine being one where i try to make every article i review pass, regardless the circumstances), and have no objections to this closure. I would like to thank SounderBruce for his time in reviewing the article as i understand that this article could have qualified for a quick fail, and my fellow nominators for their work on the article. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the follow up, i think we should only renominate in 2019, when the station opens for service. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominator final comments

@1.02 editor and KN2731: (I will not ping the reviewer since he had this on his talkpage).

• Opening Comments. As per the co-nominators view, I agree this is too premature. I also echo my thanks to SounderBrunce who had taken time to painstakingly take this review to this depth. I also concur that 3(b) is not met. As per 1a/1b, I respectfully disagree. As GA criteria is not to have unblemished language, surely we can trash it out further here before the closing. I had also independently used spelling / grammar checkers available offline and there seems no major problems. I felt that some of the contents that Brunce asked us to add further conflicted the article and ultimately further decline the quality of the prose. However, since 3 (b) is not met, that's is a non issue. I will like to also thank Brunce for not immediately failing it as it will not serve justice for this article but with the Part 2 coming so late from Part 1, this cause some confusion as well as greater disharmony of the article. I also will like to state that for GA, failure should be expected and reviewers should not just pass any review without deep consideration. Hence, Brunce is correct in his approach and I thank him for it. We cannot pass an article "regardless the circumstances" as it will only open up to reassessments.
• Points to take note of: Since 3(b) is not met, and by some extent, 1a/1b is not met, this article cannot even qualify for "B" class, however, "C" class is affirmed by this review. As I reviewed pictures of progress of this station, the current stage is just putting up the roof structure. The is a board outside the station which state that the completion is 30 Sept 2019. However, with testing issues and the rest, I don't expect the station to be up that soon. I will think there will be tethering problems as well as more reactions from the ground. I am afraid that such statements will not be that available as many of the MPs in Sembawang / residents normally comment on Facebook not on press. All these needs to be included into the article for a 3b to be met. More pictures will be appreciated also, and I will try to provide it. However, that being said, I feel this review is too rush in concurrence with the rest of the nominators. However, I will like to state that I rushed it as this is the only time this article can be stable enough. When opening, there will be a lot of things going on as ironic as it sounds. Unless much work is done then, I can only conclude this is WP:SNOW and WP:TOOSOON, understood broadly. I will think a copyedit / peer review is good but given the amount of information, and the lack of information at hand (which I trawled the whole internet - all languages in Singapore - and yet this is the only bits of information, most as primary sources - only reinforces the idea of WP:SNOW.
• Concluding remarks: To my co-nominators, thank you for the hard work. To the review, thanks for the work. Though we fail, this is another learning occasion. Pardon me if this will sound rude, but I will think the motto for both my alma matter as well as 1.02 editor school will be a fitting closure: nothing without labour, the best is yet to be. --Quek157 (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Quek157: I'll cut to the chase, I did not say I passed every nomination, I said "I try to make every article I review pass". 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: I am not referring to you, I am just stating generally in context. Sorry if you do feel offended. --Quek157 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

its ok. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

with this till station opening we will then restart ga --Quek157 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lta reading our ga review and copying from wiki

@1.02 editor:. see this paragraph. it's what we write here what after the review. seems lta stalking this page " As part of the project, a new 72-metre long rail crossover track will also be constructed north of Canberra MRT Station to connect two existing tracks that lead to and from the station. This crossover track will enhance the resilience of the NSL rail network by allowing trains to cross from one track to another when the need arises. For example, if one side of the tracks develops a fault, trains can temporarily cross over and use the other track to bypass the faulty stretch, hence enabling train services in both directions to remain available. Noise barriers will also be installed at the new rail crossover."Quek157 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"Canberra MRT Station will serve commuters living in nearby estates such as Sembawang Springs, as well as upcoming residential developments in the neighbourhood. Around 17,000 more households will be within a 10-minute walk of an MRT station, and enjoy time savings of up to 10 minutes when travelling towards the city centre or Jurong East.

5. To better facilitate commuter movements and enhance accessibility, Canberra MRT Station will have five entrances linking it to the new housing estates across Canberra Link. There will also be an elevated link bridge across Canberra Link for commuters to directly access the city-bound train platform. The new station will also have covered link-ways to bus stops, pick-up and drop-off points, as well as more than 500 bicycle parks." this one also Quek157 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

On phrasing

Over the term used to describe the manafacturing concerns located at the Yishun industrial park in close proximity to Canberra MRT station (as mentioned in the second paragraph of the 'Location' article), wouldn't it be best to use the term 'companies' instead of 'industries'. This is because the term 'industries' is often used (from my experience) to refer to a line of work as a whole instead of individual business concerns (as it is utilsed in the article), whereas the term 'companies' is often used to describe individual business concerns in general. R22-3877 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @R22-3877:, I will I agree with the word companies, however, I am really not keen to change as it can sound promotional and usually not referred in Wikipedia. And in the furture, this should be in talkpage of the main article, not here. Thanks a lot and hope to have more conversations there . --Quek157 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @R22-3877:, done --Quek157 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Content on pictures

A user had tried to remove the construction pictures of Canberra station from this article. I am starting this discussion to get opinions on whether we should retain the construction pictures or delete them. I would like to hear your opinions. Please do not attempt further changes until we have a consensus. Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: In my opinion, it would be best to remove the linked images and diagrams. The picture of the station under construction can stay, and is sufficient as it is. R22-3877 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Opps, I already removed it until I saw this. I prefer the outsourced image because it has a better view of the construction works from above as compared to the picture taken at ground level.Yenwei (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So I think we have a consensus. That the images of Canberra station under construction should stay. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@TheGreatSG'rean: Referring that the external image will stay? Yenwei (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Yenwei: Yes, of course. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

On GAN

@Yenwei: The article hasn't fully stabilised yet, so I would say it's far too premature to make the nomination. Furthermore, the article is far from well-written. I suggest you send it to WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then a peer review before even considering it for GAN. R22-3877 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@R22-3877: Noted on that. Yenwei (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canberra MRT station/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Truflip99 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Starting review. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Initial impressions

• Too many images
  • Removed some images, should the external images box be moved to the external links section or kept where it is? 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this is fine. You used the correct template. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Etymology is too short to warrant its own section. Can be combined with Location sub. Rename sub to "Station details"
  •  Done 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    •  Not done -- I prefer you weave that one etymology sentence into the prose; I've went ahead and reorganized the sections. You can honestly get rid of all the sub headings under Station details.
      •  Done
• Design and Artwork subs can be combined as well
  •  Done 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think that quote is necessary, as it doesn't have a ref.
  •  Removed 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

• type = [[Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)|Mass Rapid Transit]] station
• platforms = 2 [[side platform]]s
  •  Both done

Lead

• remove refs from lead; move them to body
  •  Done except for the reference for Dover station as it is not included in the body.
• Canberra MRT station (NS12) is an elevated Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station in Sembawang, Singapore. It is the 12th station eastbound on the North South line and is located along Canberra Link at the junction with Canberra Way. -- copy edited
• With several green features included in the station during construction -- name a few exmaples
  • @Truflip99: it is mentioned further into the article: 'For the construction team's efforts to integrate landscaping and the use of eco-friendly materials, the station was awarded...' 1.02 editor (T/C) 07:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes I know. But it's worth mentioning to lengthen the lead. --Truflip99 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done

Taking it slow on this one as this article actually needs substantial improvement, and I'd rather make those improvements now than fail it. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

History

• the Draft Master Plan 2013 was officially gazetted to become the Master Plan 2014 in June that year. -- June of that year
  •  Done
• in response to these Master Plans -- lower case master plans
  •  Done
• On 27 April 2015, LTA awarded China State Construction Engineering Corporation (Singapore Branch) Contract 158 for the Design and Construction of Canberra Station at a sum of S$90 million. -- LTA awarded Contract 158 to China State...
  •  Done
• Heavy construction work began on 26 March 2016 -- comma after date
  •  Done
• Between 18 and 20 May 2019, a 72 m (236 ft) long rail crossover track was constructed at the northern end of Canberra station to connect the two tracks. -- use this convert = {{convert|72|m|ft|adj=mid|-long}}
  •  Done
• such as the power outage that occurred on 7 July 2015 -- this would be more appropriate in parentheses I think
  • Having an example between 2 commas is actually correct. Using dashes can also replace the commas if you wish.
• For the construction team's efforts to integrate landscaping and the use of eco-friendly materials, the station was awarded a Platinum certification under the Building and Construction Authority's new Green Mark scheme for transit stations. Canberra station is the first MRT station to attain such a rating. -- I think this is more appropriate in the next section
  •  Done

More later. --Truflip99 (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Station details

• An estimated 17,000 households will benefit from the station. -- government predictions should be taken with a grain of salt; "is expected to benefit"...; also this sentence is better off as the second sentence in the next paragraph
  •  Partly done not moved as per below
• There are new and forthcoming Housing and Development Board (HDB) public housing developments, private condominiums as well as landed properties (Sembawang Springs Estate) near the station. In addition, it serves Yishun Industrial Park A, which houses mainly manufacturing companies along with the Singapore Civil Defence Force 3rd Division Headquarters and the Yishun Fire Station. -- source?
  •  Removed No reliable source for this, so I removed it.
• Canberra Plaza (currently under construction) -- under construciton as of April 2020...
  •  Done
• It will be completed by the end of 2019. -- update?
  • I couldn't find an updated source on this, so i am assuming it is still under construction
• now a subsidiary of Surbana Jurong -- both? if not indicate former or latter
  •  Done
• move ref 27 at end of next comma
  •  Done
• thus the station shapes... -- is shaped
  •  Done
• to allow natural light to enter it. -- omit "it"
  •  Done
• Louvers were used to provide ventilation. -- used --> installed
  •  Done
• The station has five entrances. -- where?
  • It is in the sentences afterwards, edited it to make the connection clearer
• An elevated sheltered footbridge built across Canberra Link -- omit "elevated" as it is understood with footbridge; "across" --> "over"
  •  Done
• The artwork in the station, Symbiosis, was painted by Singaporean artist Tan Zi Xi. It aims to emphasise the symbiotic relationship between flora and fauna. Residents and stakeholders from the nearby Sembawang Group Representation Constituency contributed to the artwork by drawing imaginative plants and animals after a workshop that involved a nature walk. Ms Tan developed their drawings further to suit the lively design of the station. -- this is better off in the previous paragraph; omit "Ms"
  •  Done

More later. --Truflip99 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking good. Just need an update on that mall that was supposed to be completed in 2019. --Truflip99 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am satisfied with this article. Passing. --Truflip99 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: Thanks for the review! 1.02 editor (T/C) 03:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Truflip99: @1.02 editor: Congrats for your hard work on this article. Hope we can use this as a standard for the current articles.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Canberra MRT station was designed with a nautical theme to reflect the area's historical role as a British naval base? "Canberra MRT Station - DP Architects". dpa.com.sg. Archived from the original on 29 April 2017. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  • ALT1:... that residents in Sembawang Group Representation Constituency contributed to the artwork in Canberra MRT station, Symbiosis, by drawing imaginative plants and animals? "Factsheet: Design Elements of the New Canberra Station". lta.gov.sg. 1 November 2019. Archived from the original on 2 November 2019. Retrieved 2 November 2019.

Improved to Good Article status by 1.02 editor (talk). Self-nominated at 07:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Exempt from QPQ because second nomination. Good to go. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)