Talk:Nicoll Highway collapse

removal

I removed the following from the main article to this talk page. It was poorly written and totally unreferenced. Mdanh2002 (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

==Accident Causes==

Recent investigations by MIT show that the main reason of the sudden collapse was the misinterpreted local geology and overestimated soil shear strength in its analysis. The structure was therefore underdesigned to resist lateral earth pressures, on clay with very poorly features.

From the structural point of view, was observed also errors in detailing the structural connections for the structural bracing system; the collapse then occurred when the lower level of bracing was overloaded and there was inadequate capacity to redistribute the loads among the remaining supports. Although large wall deflections occurred during the excavation, the measured strut loads were smaller than expected. As a result, the project engineers were apparently unaware of the potential for a catastrophic failure, showing the importance of a good planning and design stages in great social projects.

File:Nicoll Highway press.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nicoll Highway press.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicoll Highway collapse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 16:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, I'm taking this.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

Lead:

• Para 1: an MRT tunnel - I suggest spelling out the MRT's full name here, as it's the first time you mention it.
• Para 1: leading to the collapse of the highway - Similarly, instead of "the highway" I would say "Nicoll Highway". I know the title is "Nicoll Highway collapse", but the highway itself should probably be explicitly mentioned in the lead.
• Para 3: I would briefly mention the victims' compensation and the highway reinstatement. The other four subsections of the "Aftermath" section are already summarized here.

Nicoll Highway and Merdeka Bridge:

• I suggest linking Katong and Changi.
• I noticed that Merdeka Bridge is linked twice: first as a redirect from Kallang Bridge, then as a direct link to Merdeka Bridge, Singapore. I would remove one of these links.
• The highway and the bridge were later widened to accommodate seven lanes and the works were completed in August 1967 - How about "By August 1967, the highway and the bridge had been widened to accommodate seven lanes"?

• • Fixed the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nicoll Highway station:

• I'd link Circle Line in the first paragraph rather than in a hatnote. I'd also link to reclaimed land and strut in the second paragraph.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: In 1996, the joint venture was investigated for breaching safety rules - I'd clarify that this investigation was on a previous project.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: consisted of silty old alluvium and marine clay that was the result of sea level changes in the Kallang River - Was the clay alone the result of sea level changes, or were both the alluvium and marine clay a result of the sea level changes? Also, why did this require the station to be built from the bottom up?
  • I have to be honest; I just mentioned the soil conditions of the site taken from this source (page 3)

Incident:

• Para 1: At about 3:30 pm on 20 April 2004 - I'd mention the local time zone.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: a 100 m (330 ft) stretch [...] 100 metres long, 130 metres wide, and 30 metres deep (328 by 427 by 98 ft) - There seems to be an inconsistency on how the measurements are rounded here. If we're going to round to the nearest meter, I'd go with {{cvt|100|m|ft|0|adj=on}}.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: but did not escape in time because a flight of exit stairs collapsed - I assume the exit stairs hadn't collapsed yet when the workers evacuated. Or did they leave another way?
  • I guess.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: motorists had to use alternative routes while the highway stretch was restored - I think this is redundant and can be deleted, as readers would naturally assume that the affected motorists would have to use alternate routes. On the other hand, if the collapse of the highway had completely cut off one part of the country with another, that would be worth mentioning.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: I'd link Esplanade, Suntec City, and Marina Square. Also, do you know how power was restored so quickly?
  • Fixed. And no, not stated in source.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Rescue and safety measures

• Para 1: Singaporean authorities dismissed terrorism and sabotage - It seems strange to put this at the beginning of the paragraph, unless the authorities immediately dismissed these as possible causes before they even arrived at the site.
  • Shifted to the inquiry section.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: used a life-detector device to detect any signs of life - To me, "to detect any signs of life" seems unnecessary, since you would probably not be using a life-detector device for any other purpose.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: I'd also link sniffer dogs.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Paras 1 and 3: The second body was recovered at 11:42 pm on 21 April. ... A third body was recovered from the accident site on 22 April at 12:15 am. - Chronologically these are only 33 minutes apart, but in this article they're separated by a full paragraph. I personally would have put these in the same paragraph at least, but I can understand why you arranged the sentences this way.
• Para 2: Goh extending his condolences to the families of the victims - Shouldn't this be "Goh extended his condolences"?
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: "pay tribute" to the rescue workers - Since this is a short, commonly used phrase, "pay tribute" may not even need the quotation marks.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 3: 01:05 am, 3:30 pm - You should be consistent over whether you include leading zeros for times.
  • Fixed. No leading zeroes--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 3: I would also link grouting.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 5: To prevent the first span triggering the collapse of the 610-metre (2,000 ft) bridge in case of displacement - The first span being the slab before the abutment?
  • Well, this is what the source says.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Para 5: By the way, was the first span then repaired or rebuilt?
  • With the restoration of the underpass, yes. But not explicitly stated.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 6: Several vehicles, equipment and construction materials were retrieved using a specialised crane - When did this happen? I see that one of the sources is from August, which seems to indicate that this process took a while and/or was delayed.
  • Yeah it took over a while after the rescue.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Committee of Inquiry:

• The COI called for 143 witnesses to provide evidence, 14 of whom were experts - Why not just " The COI called for 143 witnesses to provide evidence, including 14 experts"?
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• the inquiry was planned for 1 June - I'd say "originally planned".
  • Fixed to originally scheduled.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry:

• Para 1: the LTA had already found flaws in Nishimatsu–Lum Chang's design since October 2001 - I think this would be worded better as "the LTA had already found flaws in Nishimatsu–Lum Chang's design in October 2001". At least in the US, if you say the LTA had found flaws "since" October 2001, you're saying that they are constantly finding flaws. I don't know if this is different in Singapore, but saying "in October 2001" removes all doubt.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: An alternative design was proposed in consultation with an NTU professor but the contractor rejected the design - I'd use the past perfect tense ("had been proposed", "had rejected"), as I assume the alternative design was proposed some months beforehand, not after the inquiry had already begun.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: increase the maximum threshold the LTA agreed to - Maximum threshold of movement?
  • Yes. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: gave the LTA repeated assurances. - Assurances that it was safe?
  • It's about their calculations. Fixed accordingly--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 3: This was because soil-monitoring instruments, which were placed roughly in the centre of the collapsed area, were buried - Does the source say when or why the instruments were buried? In any case, I would say "had been buried".
  • Not really. Also had been buried--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 3: According to a system analyst from Monosys - What is Monosys?
  • A subcontractor. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 5: but instructed the subcontracting site supervisor Nallusamy Ramadoss to proceed with the installation of more struts and pouring of cement on the buckled struts to strengthen the wall - I'd rephrase this as "but instructed the subcontracting site supervisor Nallusamy Ramadoss to continue installing struts and pouring cement on the buckled struts to strengthen the wall".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Resumption and conclusion:

• Para 1: also seen in other ongoing construction projects - "Also" is redundant if you're saying "other construction projects".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 1: These shortcomings included the appointment of inexperienced personnel to monitor the safety of the retaining wall system. - I suggest rephrasing a bit to "Among other shortcomings, inexperienced personnel had been appointed to monitor the safety of the retaining wall system" or something similar.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 2: admitted his lack of respect for safety - "Admitted" is listed as one of the "words to watch", so I'd use it only if he admitted this during testimony or something similar.
  • He did say so in court: "A project manager responsible for the Circle Line tunneling works at Nicoll Highway admitted he had an "utterly callous" and "irresponsible attitude towards safety". Wong Hon Peng, who is from the Land Transport Authority, said this in court on Tuesday as he was being cross-examined by Mr Philip Jeyaretnam, the counsel for Nishitmatsu, the main contractor for the Circle Line." Source.--ZKang123 (talk)
• Para 3: the incident could have been prevented, and was caused by human error and organisational failures - I would just say "the incident was preventable and had been caused by human error and organisational failures".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
• Para 3: strut-waler - I'd link this to beam (structure), since this is already linked in the lead.
  • It has actually been linked in the Inquiry section.
• Para 3: the COI made several recommendations that were stated in its interim report - The COI restated these recommendations, then? If so, I would say "the COI restated several recommendations from its interim report".
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot about this. I will try to complete this over the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath:

• Would it be better to give the victims' names earlier on, e.g. in the Rescue and safety measures section? The mentions of the victims themselves seem like they fit better in the "Rescue and safety measures" section or in the "incident" section.

• The reason it's here is because the initial reportings and sources referenced in the Rescue and safety measures section did not mention their names outright. But I may move this passage earlier under the section.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• In the list of victims, for all three victims I would replace "He had a wife..." with "He was survived by his wife..."
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Heng had selflessly hurried his workers" - I would remove "selflessly" as that may violate WP:NPOV and is already implied by the rest of the sentence.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• "Family of the victims were given S$30,000 " - Each, or in total?
  • Each. Fixed accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Honours and awards:

• When was Heng honoured?
  • May 2004. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Criminal trials:

• Para 1: "The COI determined the three companies involved – Nishimatsu, L&M Geotechnic and Monosys – and thirteen professionals from the LTA and Nishimatsu, were responsible for the collapse" - I would reword this to avoid having to use the singular comma, e.g.
  • "The COI determined that responsibility for the collapse was shared by the three companies involved – Nishimatsu, L&M Geotechnic and Monosys – and thirteen professionals from the LTA and Nishimatsu"
  • "The COI determined the three companies involved (Nishimatsu, L&M Geotechnic and Monosys), and thirteen professionals from the LTA and Nishimatsu, were responsible for the collapse"
  • "The COI determined that Nishimatsu, L&M Geotechnic, Monosys and thirteen professionals from the LTA and Nishimatsu were responsible for the collapse"
  • Fixed with the third.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• Para 1: "Ng Seng Yoong, an LTA qualified personnel" - Do you mean "an LTA-qualified personnel" (a staff member who was specifically certified by the LTA) or "one of LTA's qualified personnel" (a qualified staff member of the LTA)?
  • Source says: LTA's qualified person Ng Seng Yoong.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

    Oh, I see. So I would go with "one of LTA's qualified personnel" or something like that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Construction safety reforms:

• "The LTA and BCA introduced new safety protocols such as a new Project Safety Review which will identify and reduce risks of hazards identified" - Instead of "which will identify", I suggest "which identifies" since this project safety review has presumably already been used for projects following the accident. The word "identified" seems a bit unnecessary, as it's already implied that the hazards have been identified before corrective action is taken.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
• "The contractors and LTA are to meet" - Similarly, I'd say "The contractors and LTA meet every six months" if this has been used already.
  • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Highway reinstatement:

• No issues here.

Station relocation and opening:

• Para 1: "tunnels to the previous site were crushed" - This does not make too much sense. If the tunnels were crushed, either a void would be created somewhere else, or the ground would sag, unless the tunnels were then infilled. Or maybe the walls of the tunnels were crushed and filled with rock?
  • The source isn't very clear on this. Would demolish be a better term?--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, I suppose so. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Para 3: "and further postponed until 2010" - Was this further delay also due to the collapse?
  • Not exactly. I'm unsure why the CCL works were further delayed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I will review other aspects of the article next. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Will do spot checks shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref numbers as of this revision.

Formatting:

• Ref 2 ("Council's $11,000,000 plan will ease bottleneck". The Straits Times. Singapore. 11 July 1953. p. 7 – via NewspaperSG.) - There is an extra bracket at the end.
• You should be consistent about whether you include locations. A few citations have the parameter |location=Singapore, but most don't.
• Similarly, you should be consistent about whether to include publishers. Ref 119 ("LTA completes final tunnelling work on Circle Line". Channel NewsAsia. Mediacorp.) has a publisher, but other Channel NewsAsia cites don't have publishers.
• The |pp= parameter should be used instead of |p= for the following citations:
  • Ref 18 (Whittle & Davies 2006, p. 3–4.)
  • Ref 81 (Ministry of Manpower 2005, p. 9–12.)
  • Ref 90 (Ministry of Manpower 2005, p. 3–6.)

Spot checks:

• 12 ("Stage 1 of the Circle Line". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 10 October 2020.) - The first use of this citation does not seem to back up the text In 2001, Nicoll Highway station became part of Circle Line (CCL) Stage 1 when the MRL was incorporated into the CCL (that sentence is, however, backed up by ref 13). The second use of ref 12 is fine.
• 30 ("President Nathan Pays Tribute to Rescue Workers at Nicoll Highway". Channel NewsAsia. 22 April 2004. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023.) - no issues
• 35 ("Third Body Found at Highway Collapse site, Identified as LTA Engineer". Channel NewsAsia. 22 April 2004. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023.) - no issues
• 46 ("Authorities rule out terrorism in Singapore highway collapse". The Star. 20 April 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023.) - No issues based on headline, but this citation requires a subscription to view. It's up to you whether or not you want to add the |url-access= parameter to this and to other paywalled refs.
• 47 ("No Foul Play Suspected in Nicoll Highway Collapse: Wong Kan Seng". Channel NewsAsia. 20 April 2004. Archived from the original on 8 August 2004. Retrieved 25 August 2023.) - no issues
• 54 ("Progress of Committee of Inquiry to Date" (PDF). National Archives of Singapore. Ministry of Manpower. 1 September 2004. Retrieved 24 August 2023.) - no issues
• 63 (Choo, Johnson (20 August 2004). "L&M; Lawyer Accuses Nishimatsu Engineer of Sleeping on the Job". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 13 November 2004. Retrieved 25 August 2023.) - The quote checks out. However, in the most literal sense, the phrase "nothing alarming" is a direct quote from the reporter, rather than from Ahilan.
• 82 ("Government Response To The Final Report Of The Committee Of Inquiry Into The Nicoll Highway Collapse". Ministry of Transport. 11 May 2005. Archived from the original on 22 April 2021. Retrieved 23 April 2021.) - no issues
• 90 (Ministry of Manpower 2005, p. 3–6.) - no issues
• 104 ("Update on Progress of Repair Works for Nicoll Highway: Crawford Underpass Re-Opens to Traffic". Channel NewsAsia. 28 April 2004. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 26 August 2023.) - no issues
• 111 (Wong, Siew Ying; Ng, Lian Cheong (4 February 2005). "Nicoll Highway Circle Line MRT to be located at Republic Avenue". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 25 May 2005. Retrieved 29 January 2022.) - no issues
• 120 ("Welcome Remarks by Mr Raymond Lim at the Opening of the Circle Line from Dhoby Ghaut to Bartley on 16 April 2010". Ministry of Transport. Archived from the original on 1 May 2020. Retrieved 1 May 2020.) - no issues

@ZKang123: Looks good, aside from a few minor issues. I'll pass the GAN once these are fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed as above.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Images and copyright

• Image licenses look good.
  • However, given that the person who uploaded File:Kallang Basin 2, Dec 05.JPG is blocked for copyright concerns, I ran this through TinEye anyway. I didn't see any concerns about this image.
    • The user in question was blocked given he snapped photos of 2D artworks and 3D temporary exhibits which aren't covered under Singapore's FoP. But in this case, the image is self-taken like many others he uploaded before his block.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

      I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Copyright check didn't turn up any close paraphrasing or copyright violations. The only matches are proper names and common phrases like "the collapse of Nicoll Highway". Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2024 (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.