Template:Did you know nominations/North East MRT line
- 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) 21:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
North East MRT line
- ... that until 2016, fares on Singapore's North East MRT line were higher than those on the other MRT lines? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that in 1991, it was planned to further extend Singapore's North East MRT line to serve future residential and industrial developments on Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong? Source: "Long term development plans for Tekong and Ubin revealed". The Straits Times. 24 February 1991. p. 16.
- ALT2: ... that Singapore's North East MRT line saw the first launch of the Art-in-Transit (AiT) programme – a public artwork showcase on the MRT network? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Washington State Route 304
Improved to Good Article status by ZKang123 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC).
- I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Thank you, ZKang123 for a very comprehensive and carefully-constructed railway article. This article was promoted to GA on 12 January. Hooks are all cited above, except ALT0 which is only partly cited above. However ALT0 is fully cited in the article, including for "until 2016", so no problem with hooks. Just one minor issue:
(1) A correction is required in the main text, regarding "a British consultant firm" and "a British firm". It is made clear in the source ([3]), which says, "A British consultancy team ... Sir William Halcrow and Partners, Merz & McLellan and London Transport International". (It goes on to say that the British team would be doing the first stage, i.e. identifying routes, extension routes, and the right of way for protection by the government.) Therefore it's not one firm, it is a group of entities which may not all be primarily consultants, but may be hired to do consultancy as experts in their field. So the above phrases in the article should be changed to say something like "a British consultancy team, consisting of ... etc." I don't think that naming the companies counts as advertising, because you have already mentioned Otis and Westinghouse. Being clear about the British team would improve the neutrality of the article, which needs as a whole to make it clear that this railway line is at least partly an international effort. It is interesting that the source that I have linked above mentions an American-Australian joint team which was chosen for phase 2B of the MRT - but maybe that team worked on a different railway line?
If the above issue can be addressed, then this nomination should be good to go. Storye book (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Alright did the fix.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, ZKang123. Good to go with ALT2 preferred, because the Art-in-Transit programme looks fun and quirky (although the other ALTs are OK). Storye book (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)