Talk:Woodleigh 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) 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need "2012 incidents"?

I don't really see the need to document service faults and other hiccups, unless particularly noteworthy in terms of damage caused, or casualties. Rindo (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2012 (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)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 04:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

Copy changes

• Woodleigh was not planned to open along with the other NEL stations. The station would only — Consider joining with semicolon
• In "Station details", the second paragraph has some choppy short sentences that could use some reflow to sound better.
• "The experts in Edinburgh" — since these experts are new to the reader, I wouldn't use a definite article. "Experts in Edinburgh..." This could also perhaps be joined by semicolon with the preceding sentence.

Other notes

• Refs are archived.
• Images have alt tags and are suitably licensed. The image in the History section probably should be left-aligned; I know this isn't always the best option, but I'd rather have some balance in the layout than what's lopsided.
• Earwig reveals only quotes and common phrases in similarity.

Overall

• Just a bit of prose fine-tuning and moving that one image over and you have a GA, ZKang123. Ping me when changes have been made. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Addressed above issues. @Sammi Brie ZKang123 (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2022 (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 SL93 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that staff have to be deployed to assist confused commuters alighting at Woodleigh MRT station by accident, having intended to alight at the next station and were unaware of the station's opening? Source: "Woodleigh MRT station finally opens – to some confusion". The Straits Times. Singapore Press Holdings. 21 June 2011.
  • ALT1: ... that Woodleigh MRT station was closed for three hours after a suspicious substance was found in various areas in the station? Source: [1]
  • ALT2: ... that due to the lack of developments in the area, Woodleigh MRT station was closed for operations for eight years since its completion in 2003? Source: [2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lyric Theatre (New York City, 1998)

Improved to Good Article status by ZKang123 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:46, 21 January 2022 (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: Source spot checks look good (AGF on the offline sources per GA). I find the first hook (ALT0, if you will) the most interesting but was wondering whether it could be more concise. For example, "... that staff at the newly opened Woodleigh MRT station had to assist unaware commuters who accidentally alighted there?" would cut the hook by roughly 50 characters. This is not a pressing issue, so I'm passing the nom either way. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 10:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)