Talk:Singapore Rail Test Centre

Former featured article candidateSingapore Rail Test Centre is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleSingapore Rail Test Centre has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2025Good article nomineeListed
May 31, 2025Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 11, 2025Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that before the establishment of the Singapore's Rail Test Centre, the bulk of rolling-stock testing had to be conducted overseas?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Singapore Rail Test Centre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Starship.paint (talk · contribs) 13:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

I can review this, but maybe I can only start in two weeks time. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the below issues being addressed, and having checked the article and the sources, I am satisfied that the article meets the Good Article criteria (WP:GACR6) of being well-written, verifiable with no original research. broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated. I am passing this, good job ZKang123. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History

Design

Infobox

Lede

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 SonOfYoutubers talk 06:38, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by ZKang123 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Allow me then to suggest a few more alts that aren't as contentious.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I see both hooks as problematic. ALT2 seems too technical or specialist, and ALT3 as currently written reads like an advertisement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: What about a simplified ALT2? Like ALT4: ...that the tracks of the Singapore Rail Test Centre are designed to work with different signalling systems and can run on both direct current and alternating current power? ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems too complex. Maybe split it into separate hooks? It has two main hook facts when individually either work as hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then:

Is that better? ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ZKang123: Sorry, but I don't find either part of ALT4 interesting; products are always going to have specifications.--Launchballer 16:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Hmm... what about: ALT5: ...that the Singapore Rail Test Centre was built on a country club originally acquired for the Kuala Lumpur–Singapore High Speed Rail? Thanks for looking into this, btw. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about ALT6: ... that part of Singapore Rail Test Centre was built on a reservoir?--Launchballer 08:55, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think ALT5 is a bit more interesting because it concerns a major cancelled project. And well, technically only a viaduct crosses the reservoir.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, hence 'part of'. The thing with ALT5 is that most mainpage readers would not know that the Kuala Lumpur line was a major cancelled project.--Launchballer 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then I go with your suggestion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask for another reviewer as I can't approve my own hook.--Launchballer 14:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing ALT6 per Launchballer's comment. ALT6 is cited inline, meets DYKINT, and is verified in the source. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ready to approve the nomination, but just to make sure: @RoySmith: Have the sourcing issues you raised been solved? I took a quick look at the article, and it doesn't seem problematic to me anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I'm going to leave that decision to somebody less involved than me. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: You were the one who raised concerns about the sourcing, and thus why the hook was pulled, so it's your call if your concerns have been addressed or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't imagine you'll like my answer, but if you insist... I put a lot of effort into reviewing this the first time (and in more detail at FAC) and rejected it. That should have been the end of it. I think it is unfair to expect that I'll put that much effort again into a new review. I also don't think this should have passed GA but I don't have the energy to fight that battle. DYK needs to stop devoting so much energy to trying to rescue sub-standard nominations. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that were the case the DYK nomination for the North Korean destroyer Choe Hyon should not have been greenlitted given arguably, South Korean sources would merely copy North Korean claims of the ship, if you believe the article still has sourcing issues as such.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 17:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: The ping is only to see if the sourcing concerns raised in the FAC have been resolved, not for an opinion regarding the hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Narutolovehinata5. I'll take a look soon. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: - in my opinion the current sources are acceptable for DYK standard, as has been from the conclusion of my GA review. Your mileage may vary. starship.paint (talk / cont) 01:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to enquire @Narutolovehinata5:, why are we also basing the source quality on FAC standards than GA standards? From my understanding, the GA stage only requires reliable sources to be used, while the main criticisms of sourcing on the FAC were more based on their quality.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure why the sourcing was even questioned in the first place, it looked just fine to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any concerns here. The facility is notable and the sources were OK for statements of basic fact. My concerns in the FAC were around NPOV issues which aren't relevant to either of the proposed hooks. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just give this the tick since I don't really see what was wrong with the sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the fact is currently in the article, but it can be found in this source. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the fact into the article.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT7 needs a footnote. ALT7 is weird in that, to specialists, it's not interesting since it's common for trains to be tested overseas rather than domestically, but it's more interesting to the hoi polloi. @ZKang123: Fix ALT7's referencing issue and this will be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what sort of source referencing issue is there for me to fix atm?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence Prior to the establishment of the Singapore Rail Test Centre (SRTC), Singapore's rolling stock had to be tested overseas. needs a footnote per WP:DYKHFC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright fixed accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Singapore Rail Test Centre

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Seems to be consensus that this meets GA, if not FA standards. Withdrawn by nominator in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Massive sourcing deficiencies as laid out by @RoySmith: at the FAC and DYK. Launchballer 00:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make my position clear about the so-called "sourcing deficiencies" of this article.
If The Straits Times or local media are considered as invalid since they are considered still too close to the government and merely copying these claims, then almost every article related to Singapore would need to be purged since there's often very little coverage on our country by international news and we rely a lot on government reports. Already I tried my best, along with starship, to scourge for more secondary sources, such as International Railway Journal covering this subject, and I strongly believe that it's on that basis that this article passes GNG given its interest in other rail professional circles. I also doubt even local news reports would blindly copy from the press releases before publishing them. since they still have editorial standards to verify these claims...
I also despise the generalisations of our press releases and news sources as unreliable just because they are "pro-government". The Straits Times has also been assessed as reliable as a newspaper of record except in cases of political controversy, and I don't see any political controversy here behind this project. You must also understand that Singapore is a small city-state and almost everything here is tied to the government in some form.
I can understand why this article failed at the FAC stage, since that requires high-quality sources. But from my understanding of the GA criteria, it only calls for Reliable Sources. However now, if the heavy use of primary sources and lack of any independent secondary sources warrants a fail, then I'm really afraid for the state of numerous GA-rated MRT articles which rely much on government press releases, operators and local news sources.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to what Zkang is saying. This a rail testing facility, so why would the use of The Straits Times be considered unreliable in this context? Most MRT articles would need to be purged if The Straits Times or any similar source is "unreliable" (example: most TEL articles like Marine Terrace or Tanjong Katong since they use gov publications like social media posts and factsheets). It's okay to use primary sources at this stage, it ain't FAC. The Straits Times fits the requirements to be a reliable source. The closest issue might be that it's churnalist but even then, it does conduct original reporting such as in this article, where it uses an LTA social media post for its article but also interviewed SMRT for more info, or for this case, this article (which has been brought up by Roysmith in FA), where it uses the LTA's factsheet but also interviews the acting Transport Minister for more info. I do agree that the lack of high-quality sources prevents it from being a FA but ST is good enough to be used for GA. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall ping Z1720 here since he often oversees GAR nominations for Singapore-related articles. And also starship.paint (sorry for dragging you here and there, but it seems things are escalating as people continue to question the article's eligibility for DYK and GA).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my GA review passing this as GA and invite the highlighting and removal of any unreliable sources or content sourced to unreliable sources. starship.paint (talk / cont) 05:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to bother copying from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singapore Rail Test Centre/archive1#RoySmith (Oppose), but there are at least 10 sources rehashing a press release and at least 11 authored by the Land Transport Authority out of 37, which means this deserves {{independent sources}}.--Launchballer 14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need to ask, have you checked the sources? Are they direct copies, or using these primary sources to quote?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer as I mentioned before, The Straits Times is not churnalist (i.e. WP:NEWSORG). I have in fact listed several articles above, all of which use government publications such as press releases and social media posts as the main source but also has interviews with the Transport Minister. Articles by the ST are not in fact direct copy and pastes from the LTA's press releases but they are paraphrased. They even interview the representatives of the relevant authorities and they give contextual information for their articles. So no, the ST's articles are not "rehashes" of press releases from the LTA.
Also, whilst I do wish that secondary reliable sources exist to replace those press releases, if no suitable secondary source can be used, then press releases may be used as such. Yes, press releases can't be used to establish the notability of articles but it can be used cautiously for other assertions per Wikipedia:PRSOURCE, such as uncontroversial fact. And as mentioned above, ST is independent of the subject (it's owned by SPH Media, which is not a government company unlike CNA (TV network) under Mediacorp), so it therefore establishes to notability of the article. Now, the main misconception is that those press releases don't make the article less notable, it just makes it harder to establish its notability, though the ST articles still appropriately establishes the subject's notability. With that being said, I do not mind if those press releases are removed if there are secondary sources to replace it. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 02:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion of the reliability and independence of Singapore-based sources is now up on WP:RSN.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I happened upon this GAR by chance and what I'm seeing is hard to believe. As ZKang said, I understand why this level of sourcing might be insufficient for FA, but I don't see how any of this could be construed as failing the GA criteria. Do you want the Straits Times to take a trundle wheel and a voltmeter to the place to verify whether the statistics for track length and power supply are correct? Unless someone can identify a factual error in these sources I am not convinced that they are unreliable. Toadspike [Talk] 06:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stated already that my problem is that the quantity of the sources deserves {{independent sources}}; as I am outvoted, and only for that reason, I am withdrawing this.--Launchballer 07:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: What specific part of the Good article criteria do you believe this article fails? Steelkamp (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QF#0c.--Launchballer 18:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Singapore_Rail_Test_Centre