Talk:Stadium MRT station

Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (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)

Suggestions for improvements

Anyone can get some info from https://landtransportguru.net/stadium-station/, but please when lifting the information use your own words. Some places for elaboration: Any explanation about the design of the station? Who designed it?--ZKang123 (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Land Transport Guru is generally regarded as WP:SPS and unreliable, so content citing it may be removed. Anyway, will get on it. R22-3877 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article.

• Previous GA Review by abuse sock account deleted. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Lead

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Lead is concise and gives explanation for construction of new station.

History

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This section unfolds the need for the station and its incorporation into CCL and the opening of operations in 2010.

Architecture

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This section explains the design and its transformation after rejection of initial design, and rejection of the proposed bridge. The connection to the National Stadium is given, along with the Singapore Sports Hub. The Architectural awards won by this work are given.

Artwork

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• This is well written, well researched and *very* well illustrated section.

Services and Location

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Fine.

Notes and References

Notes

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Checked; OK

References

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• References checked. Appropriate! Archived links are well resourced.

 

---

End Matter

Is it is Broad in its coverage?

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Yes, it is a good overview of an SMRT railway station constructed to serve the Singapore Sports Hub and well referenced. Link to Wikimedia Commons resources on the station are also given.

Further Reading

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted. An appropriate link to the photographer.

External Links

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted.

More End Matter Stuff:

1. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

• Yes, the article is neutral.

1. Is it stable?

• This article has had 282 edits since 2005, which picks up the station itself during the construction period. There is no evidence of edit warring and the article is considered stable.

1. Top editors are

   * ZKang123  
   * 115.66.22.96  
   * Sni56996  
   * Oahiyeel  

1. It is illustrated by images ?

• Very well illustrated; the link to the external image is excellent work.

Overall

Good work.

Conclusion

 Passed