Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1

Sengkang LRT line

Featured article candidates/Sengkang LRT line/archive1

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's second Light Rail Transit system. A little clarification; despite the name, it's not a "light rail" as we know like in the US, but more of a neighbourhood people's mover or automated guideway transit. Unlike the preceding Bukit Panjang LRT, the Sengkang LRT saw fewer issues in its operations since its inauguration in 2003. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback. ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

I'm concerned about the sourcing. I count 15 18 sources that are from the Land Transport Authority, who owns the line. Another 30 are from SBS Transit, the line's operator. I count 29 from The Straits Times, the government-owned newspaper. 5 press releases or government minister speeches from the National Archives of Singapore.

I just reiterate again: it's unrealistic not to use these sources or there would be nothing to write about this LRT line. And these sources are OK for statements of basic facts, including the opening of stations, the construction of the lines, the awarding of contracts, the technical specifications, the features of stations... Unless there's are issues with WP:NPOV pushed, I don't see any problems.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 17 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]

What disturbs me here is the claim that (paraphrasing) "Since there aren't any good sources, we should accept the bad sources". RoySmith (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you want me to do? You are not being constructive in this FAC.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is not going to make you happy, and I appreciate that you've put a lot of effort into writing this article (and others like it), but I think the preponderance of the sources do not meet our requirement for "high-quality reliable sources". If you are unable to find substantially better sourcing, I think you should withdraw this. RoySmith (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pending others' consensus, I won't withdraw this. I advice you instead to drop the stick. In all my FAC nominations, I never have to encounter this issue.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

I'm with Roy here. For me, the issue is WP:DUEWEIGHT: take for example the section about the 2017 renovations. All of that, as far as I can see, is cited to publications whose owners (the Singaporean government) also own the railway -- there's a clear WP:COI there that means this is no guide to whether, as DUEWEIGHT requires, our coverage here is in proportion to that observed in neutral, reliable, secondary sources. If this were also reported in independent or international media, I would be greatly reassured, but we have something fundamentally promotional in tone ("look how much work the government is doing on the railway!"), whose notability is currently established entirely because it is talked about by the very people it is promoting. Whether or not this has been raised before, I think it's a problem here, and I would suggest withdrawal if more detached sources do not exist. If there just isn't the material to write an FA, that's unfortunate, but we can't promote an article that doesn't have the sources to interrogate or corroborate the government line.

On a separate note, I don't think the reference to WP:STICK is merited or helpful: "drop the stick" does not mean "agree with me when I explain why I believe I'm right", but "don't carry on a debate that has clearly been resolved". Clearly, this one is still an open question, both here and at RSN. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about the use of primary sources. However, these primary sources are not being used for analysis, only uncontroversial facts (such as the awarding of contracts and the opening of stations); this is a valid use of primary sources particularly if the sources themselves are closely connected with the subject matter. It's the use of primary sources for secondary analysis that isn't allowed.

I'd also say that the Straits Times is no more of a primary source than any other newspaper, which could be considered a primary source in some situations (mainly in a time-related sense - breaking news stories are usually primary sources, for example). The main thing that differentiates the Straits Times from "generally reliable" newspapers is the fact that the SG has limited press freedom, and some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral. Yes, there may be some form of government interference/intervention on the editorial process when comes to politics-related content. But this is a transit project. Why are you guys looking at this from a political lens? I understand the Singapore Rail Test Centre might be more contentious with more boastful claims of what it does, but the Sengkang LRT line is far from that. (Heck, this LRT even serves an opposition-held ward, but I don't think that's relevant)

I also need to clarify that the Straits Times isn't at all state-owned and is still a private entity. As I quote from SPH Media Trust: "SPH Media Trust is managed privately by its shareholders. The management shares are regulated through Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and its issuance and transfers have to be approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information, and in "any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff" the vote of one management share is equivalent to 200 ordinary shares." These shares are mainly held by banks and education institutions in Singapore.

To frame it from another perspective regarding DUEWEIGHT, there would not be as many objections if it were the New York Times reporting on the opening of a NYC transit route, even if NYC's transit system is owned by New York state, because the NYT is not itself affiliated with the state government. Or that some tram line in some obscure town of the US or Europe would be brought to FA more easily just because there's sufficient local free press news coverage, but not a tram line in an authoritarian state. Which I find it's a rather unfair assessment of what articles should be brought to the FAC stage.

I believe that WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:COMMONSENSE also applies here with regard to the use of such sources.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that -- as Roy said elsewhere, my concern isn't that the facts reported might be untrue, but that we haven't established that the balance of our coverage in this article fits how independent reliable sources cover it. Being a bit crude, we haven't shown that anyone actually cares about (say) the 2017 renovations of this railway unless they have some sort of stake in them. The relevant bit of WP:PRIMARY isn't the part about analysis, but Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. (emphasis mine). Given that the sources aren't just primary but also have a clear COI. As you note, some reporting involving the government may not be fully neutral... [and] this is a transit project -- one constructed and operated by the government. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]