I will review this. Please provide 2-3 days in order to read through.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"constructed as part of TEL3" - I get what this means, but is there a long form? Such as "TEL Phase 3", or something? TEL3 could mean phase 3, or maybe Singapore has 3 separate eastwards line that are all named TEL.
"Shenton Way station serves the TEL" - this feels off. The station, I assume, serves the surrounding areas and is served by the train service (TEL), but I wouldn't word it as is.
"Shenton Way station features two artworks" - in lead and in the body, I feel like this should be somewhat reworded. This implies that it features just two artworks - but for all we know, it has more that simply have not been added. You can say "station features the artworks Stride [...] and Everyday [...]", for example.
Not a hard-written requirement, but to reduce monotony, you think you can substitute "the station" here and there with something else? ("It" and "Shenton Way station" comes to mind)
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
Please be consistent on whether you use a linked, full name of the publisher (
Land Transport Authority,
Singapore Land Authority) or an abbreviated/raw unlinked one (LTA, CNA, mot.gov.sg) in your references.
Also probably classify the publisher= and work= value a bit separately. I wouldn't say the Singapore Land Authority is a news outlet.
Citations no 3, 4, and 8 can probably get their titles cleaned up
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I will be impressed if an article about a transit station can be non-neutral, but anyways, no POV.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
Please check again regarding the references. The same issues are still there.
On the public artworks, is there a better way to word it? Even at least adding "public" there would help. I would even argue putting the "two artworks" is not necessary - just directly go to naming the artworks one at a time.
Juxlos (
talk)
09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I will review this. Please provide 2-3 days in order to read through.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"constructed as part of TEL3" - I get what this means, but is there a long form? Such as "TEL Phase 3", or something? TEL3 could mean phase 3, or maybe Singapore has 3 separate eastwards line that are all named TEL.
"Shenton Way station serves the TEL" - this feels off. The station, I assume, serves the surrounding areas and is served by the train service (TEL), but I wouldn't word it as is.
"Shenton Way station features two artworks" - in lead and in the body, I feel like this should be somewhat reworded. This implies that it features just two artworks - but for all we know, it has more that simply have not been added. You can say "station features the artworks Stride [...] and Everyday [...]", for example.
Not a hard-written requirement, but to reduce monotony, you think you can substitute "the station" here and there with something else? ("It" and "Shenton Way station" comes to mind)
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline:
Please be consistent on whether you use a linked, full name of the publisher (
Land Transport Authority,
Singapore Land Authority) or an abbreviated/raw unlinked one (LTA, CNA, mot.gov.sg) in your references.
Also probably classify the publisher= and work= value a bit separately. I wouldn't say the Singapore Land Authority is a news outlet.
Citations no 3, 4, and 8 can probably get their titles cleaned up
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: I will be impressed if an article about a transit station can be non-neutral, but anyways, no POV.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war or content dispute:
Please check again regarding the references. The same issues are still there.
On the public artworks, is there a better way to word it? Even at least adding "public" there would help. I would even argue putting the "two artworks" is not necessary - just directly go to naming the artworks one at a time.
Juxlos (
talk)
09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply