Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhoby Ghaut MRT station/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2021 [1].

Dhoby Ghaut MRT station edit

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a major MRT interchange station in Singapore. I have worked on the article in 2020 and managed to bring it up to GA standard in October that year. Since the GA review, I have further expanded and touched up the article with new information I have managed to come across, especially the artwork section. I have brought it up for Peer review and it has also been copyedited to meet FA standards.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Both images in the history section sandwich the infobox in violation of MOS:IMAGELOC
All images appear to be freely licensed. Nice pics! (I notice you took them yourself). (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Have resolved the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I recently failed a GAN on a Singaporean MRT station due to copyright concerns, and this article has similar issues where wording has been lifted from websites or lightly paraphrased. I conducted spot checks here, and while the references to sources where text can't be copied and pasted were fine, many of those to websites where text is in html or similar failed. The following are those examples, and given my fairly high strike rate here I am concerned that there are likely to be others.

"Atrium@Orchard is the first commercial development to be fully integrated with an MRT station" - almost identical phrasing to the source
"This integration allows land use to be optimised while increasing the convenience and accessibility of public transport." - very lightly paraphrased from the source
"the interchange station garnered an "honourable mention" at the 7th Singapore Institute of Architects (SIA) Design Awards" - uncomfortably close to the source, despite it being easy to re-word this
"Combining Delia's ceramic works with Milenko's earthy mosaics" - ditto
"reflect Singapore's and the region's cultural richness and artistic heritage" - ditto
"Certain motifs, symbols and colours are repeated so the various independent components of the work remain thematically united" - ditto (this is basically the same words as in the source used in a different order) Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you (I am actually the same editor for that Singaporean MRT statio you have reviewed, btw). Can you suggest how to rephrase the following you mentioned? I will work on these.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - At the risk of being unhelpful, my suggestion is to re-write these and any other closely paraphrased sentences in your own words. As with the GAN, I would also urge you to closely check all of the text for close paraphrasing and to be highly mindful of this in the articles you develop given it may be a common risk with them. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - But not all text can be rephrased, like "reflect Singapore's and the region's cultural richness and artistic heritage" or "ceramic works" and "earthy mosaics". To me these seems to be technical phrases and expressions that cannot be easily rephrased in other words. I can try "reflecting the richness of Singapore's and the regional culture and artistic heritage." and "ceremics" and "mosaics". I will at the same time seek help from other editors on this.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - There should be no difficulty rephrasing those two examples, and this would result in stronger text - the first example is corporate-type language, and the second is unclear (what's an "earthy mosaic"?). Precise terms for things can be re-used, but put the descriptions in your own words. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be agreement that significant parts of this article require rewriting to avoid over-close paraphrasing, although discussion as to just what extent. That being the case, this would seem to be clearly not yet ready for FAC. Are there any comments around this before it is archived? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I shall withdraw the nomination then, and will work on the article another time. I have no wish to further work on it.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Wait never mind. I will let others comment on this before withdrawing and closing it.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am archiving this to allow further paraphrasing to take place to, hopefully, get the article into a FACable condition. The usual two week wait before further FAC nominations can be made will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility: the infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I plan to comment here later. I have commented at this article's peer review, so I'll look for other things that may potentially need to be improved. Epicgenius (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.