I've listed this article for peer review because it has failed twice at FAC stage. I'm not so sure what's wrong with the article, given I have tried my best to clear up all the issues with it, and it has even gone through a GOCE. As advised from the previous FAC, I shall ping @Epicgenius:, @Premeditated Chaos: and @Mike Christie:, who had been involved in previous nominations.

Honestly, I'm immensely frustrated, given I never encountered this many issues before especially for articles larger in scope like Nicoll Highway collapse or North East MRT line.

I appreciate any thoughts by any experienced FAC nominator on this. Thanks, ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that the FAC has been archived. I'll leave some comments here later, pointing out issues as I go along, as if this article were still being nominated for FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• Para 1: "located near the road intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow." - "Road" isn't necessary here.
  • I said "road" because others felt it wasn't clear what Sengkang Central is, given they assumed it's a place.
• Para 1: "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok, as well as Buangkok Bus Interchange and Sengkang Grand Residencies – an integrated commercial and residential development." - I would rephrase this to get rid of the awkward endash. For example, you can use semicolons to separate the list items: "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok; the Buangkok Bus Interchange; and Sengkang Grand Residencies, an integrated commercial and residential development."
  • Done, though personally I prefer the en-dash.
• Para 2: "Buangkok was one of two stations on the NEL that remained closed when the line began operations on 20 June 2003, upsetting the area's residents" - Do we really have to say in the lead that Buangkok was one of two stations? We can just say "Buangkok remained closed when the line began operations on 20 June 2003, upsetting the area's residents"
  • Done
• Para 3: "White Teflon sheets cover the station's two entrances." - I feel like we can say more about the station's design in the lead. For example, the fact that it has an island platform (which, weirdly enough, is in the infobox but not the prose), or the names of its architects.
  • I felt the station having an island platform is trivial because most MRT stations are island platforms anyway. But I added info about the architect

Jumping down to paragraph 2 of the Design section, shouldn't "The new bus interchange opened on 1 December 2024." go into the history section?

Tbh, it would be more awkward to be in the history section since not much happened between its opening until 2024. So that's why I added it more in the details section.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Replied to the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies, I don't intend to do a full PR for this. Since you pinged me and have expressed some frustration with the process, I will point out that many of the prose issues I identified in the first FAC for this article are also present in North East MRT line but weren't noted at that article's FAC. Unfortunately, that article passing without those issues being identified may have given you the impression that they were not a problem. I can see why you would be frustrated by that, but clarity of prose is important and shouldn't be overlooked just because it was in a previous FAC. I've made some minor copyedits to the NEMRT article, just to give you an indication of what I'm talking about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

• Platforms 2 (1 island platform) - source or remove
• Tracks 2 - source or remove
• Platform levels 1 - source or remove
• Electrified Yes - needs removal. Should be a date if listed.

History

• was first proposed in 1984 - proposed by who?

• of reception tunnels to Sengkang Depot - that may very well be true, but the source says a depot, not Sengkang Depot.

• On 17 June 2003, a few days before the opening of the NEL - "few" is vague. Try to find a source that says 3 days.

Added sources for the above.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MP Charles Chong seems to have done enough to warrant mention in the lede, which only mentions nameless "grassroots leaders" while he is an MP.

• The delay of the line's opening from 2002 to 2003 is worth mentioning, particularly since this station was further delayed.

• The History section essentially stops at February 2006, wondering if there are any updates. For example, when did the station reach a daily ridership of 5,000? The original quoted figure to be commercially viable.

• Will review more when I have time.

I just submitted my own article to Peer Review, and noticed this article in the Peer Review list. I'm a big fan of subways and mass transit, so it caught my eye.

Some thoughts on how to get this article to FA status:

• Avoid quotes. The article has too many for FA. Examples:
  • "rite of passage into adulthood"
  • "push his artistic boundaries"
  • "the explosion of colours"
  • "with much fanfare"
  • "late notice"
  • "tireless appeals"

FA reviewers do not like quotes, uless they are required. I suggest eliminating most quotes, and replace them with paraphrases (your own, unbiased words) that restate the meaning of the quote. An example of an okay quote in the article is "Save the White Elephants" tee shirts ... which is defining the tee-shrt, so that is okay.

• Flow and elegance in the prose. The prose is okay, but not "professional quality" which is required by FA. Example: Residents around the station were upset by the sudden decision; grassroots leaders had previously assured them the station would open ... that reads choppy. Better is something like: Residents around the station were upset by the sudden decision to [...the action..] because grassroots leaders had previously assured them the station would open [.. at some certain date...]] . There are quite a few sentences that do not read a smoothly as FA reviewers want. You may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and see if a volunteer there can help get the prose up to FA standards.

I think flow of the prose is the biggest task needed, to get the article to FA standards. If you cannot get a WP volunteer to help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, consider (a) Reading the article out loud to yourself ... sometimes hearing sentence out loud may reveal improvements that you will not recognize by reading. (b) Find a friend or aquaintence with excellent English skills, maybe someone that reads or writes a lot for their career, and have them make suggestions.

• Citations and sources: These look outstanding. That is important, because many of the issues in FA reviews tend to focus on cites & sources. But these look fine.

• Photos: look good. Suggestions:
  • Add more words to "Station platforms"
  • You have "alt" text, which is good
  • Some captions end in periods, some do not. It must be the same for all photos.
  • All the photos are on Right side; FA articles tend to alternate left, right, left, ... (although there might be an exception if a Left photo causes an ugly layout)

That is all I can find. I think if you do all of the above, you'll have a better chance of success in the FA process. Good luck! Noleander (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]