# Talk:HarbourFront MRT station

Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following section from this article:

Incidents
At about 10:30 am on 7 November 2006, the amount of waiting time displayed on the screens at the station platforms shows 20 minutes between trains and most commuters took it in their stride though, since the morning rush hour was over by then. A spokesperson from SBS Transit said that the slight delay was due to technical fault and normal train services resumed soon after.
It clearly does not add anything relevant to the article and is not sourced in any event. - Mark 14:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

With CCL stage 6, would HarbourFront retain its destination number or would it be transferred to another station or done away with, as LTA's maps as of now does not show destinations number 9 and 10. Should the number be removed or do we keep it for now? - 1.02 editor (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@1.02 editor: Keep it for now. Only change it when the stage opens. R22-3877 (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:HarbourFront MRT station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @ZKang123, I hope to look at this soon. Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


### Prose, POV, and coverage
Lead:
HarbourFront MRT station is an underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange station. - The country should be mentioned here. If applicable, so should the relevant part of Singapore.
Surrounding retail and commercial developments include VivoCity and HarbourFront Centre, alongside HarbourFront Bus Interchange and the Singapore Cruise Centre. - If "alongside" is meant in the physical sense, then this is a run-on sentence and should be rephrased. For instance, "Surrounding retail and commercial developments include VivoCity and HarbourFront Centre, and the station is alongside HarbourFront Bus Interchange and the Singapore Cruise Centre." If "alongside" is meant only in a matter of speaking, then you should use "as well as" instead.
First announced as World Trade Centre MRT station in March 1996, the NEL station construction - This has a dangling modifier. Ideally, this can be solved by splitting into 2 sentences. "The NEL station was first announced as World Trade Centre MRT station in March 1996. Its construction..."
Also, is it possible to add a little context about the planning into the lead? E.g. "The NEL station was first announced as World Trade Centre MRT station in March 1996 as one of the line's 16 stations."
Reflecting the station's location by the sea - Any sea in particular?
the station concourse have an elliptical motif resembling a ship hull - The station concourse has the motif, unless there are multiple concourses with such a motif.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Dealt with above points. ZKang123 (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
History - North East line:
In preliminary studies for the North East line (NEL) in 1986, it was planned for the line to terminate at Outram Park station, rather than HarbourFront. - I assume these were the plans made in 1984 for a possible north-east line serving from Outram Park to Punggol via Dhoby Ghaut. Did Mass Rapid Transit Corporation approve these plans in 1987? (I got that from the Punggol MRT/LRT station page.)
Yes. But the preliminary plan then did not include HarbourFront, so it wasn't mentioned.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
In a later study in 1995, the plans for the NEL were extended to serve World Trade Centre - I think "the plans for the NEL" can be replaced with "the planned NEL", as it's the line that was extended and not the blueprints themselves. Also, it may help to mention here that HarbourFront was supposed to be called World Trade Centre.
Fixed for the first half of this point. Not sure how to rephrase to mention that it was supposed to be called WTC.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
which was known for the harbour and associated industries. - Which harbour is that, for those who aren't familiar with Singapore?
Linked to Keppel Harbour.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
To minimise any impact - This can be condensed to just "To minimise impact".
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, you can link "piles" to Deep foundation.
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
As the station was constructed near the seashore, to prevent any water seepage into the site, cement was injected into the soil surrounding the site via jet grouting. - I would reword this to active voice as it is very clunky right now. This may require some rewording. Also, "prevent any" can just be "prevent". E.g. "In order to prevent water seepage into the site, the contractor injected cement into the soil surrounding the site via jet grouting, as the station was constructed near the seashore".
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
but that was financially unfeasible. - Is there any info on how much this would have cost?
Not stated. Source only mentioned it was "an uneconomical solution".--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
two exhibition halls of the World Trade Centre - This should probably be "two of the World Trade Centre's exhibition halls".
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
the road and rail project teams of LTA - Like the above, this should be "LTA's road and rail project teams".
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
To maintain the road capacity, the traffic was diverted to temporary steel decking that ran over the construction site. - Because the upkeep of normal traffic flow is already mentioned in the previous sentence, I think "To maintain the road capacity" can just be deleted.
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
or the 2.16 kilometres (1.34 mi) - This should be singular. You can add |adj=on to the {{convert}} template.
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
the extension of the NEL overrun tunnel extended - This is a bit redundant and normally I would just delete one of the uses of "extend". However, as I understand it the extension was just announced at the time, not completed. I would therefore say "In October 2012, the LTA announced that the NEL overrun tunnel would be extended".
Might be a typo on my part. Rephrased and fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, is it just "LTA" or "the LTA"?
The LTA.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I assume SBS received the contract to operate the NEL when it opened? Ditto for SMRT/CCL.
Will mention it in the station details section, though I kind of wish not to add since this is an interchange station of two different operators....--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
History - Circle line:
the CCL will serve the HarbourFront area - The Circle line should be spelled-out in full at its first mention.
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
will be constructed as part of CCL Stage 5 (CCL5) - Since the NEL platforms were already open, I would say instead that "a new platform would be constructed as part of CCL Stage 5 (CCL5)".
Wrote "the new platforms".--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
special train shuttle - This can be linked to shuttle train.
Linked.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
a special train shuttle service was launched for services - "Services" is redundant here. I would suggest " a special shuttle train was launched for services".
Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
In November 2013, it was planned to extend the CCL from HarbourFront station - The LTA proposed this?
More accurately, first announced in Jan 2013 by transport minister Lui Tuck Yew. Changed source.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Station details:
HarbourFront station is the termini of the NEL and CCL - Surprisingly, there is a tense mismatch here; "termini" refers to "station", not to the lines. A better way to say this would be "HarbourFront station is the terminus of both the NEL and CCL".
On the NEL, the adjacent station is Outram Park station. On the CCL, the adjacent station is Telok Blangah station - These sentences seem a bit repetitive, though I do concede that a similar sentence structure is used for other MRT station articles. I'd ordinarily suggest something like "The next stop on the NEL is Outram Park station, while the next stop on the CCL is Telok Blangah station". However, since CCL6 is being constructed in the counterclockwise direction, maybe it would be better to instead say something like "...the next stop on the CCL in the clockwise direction is Telok Blangah station". Let me know what you think
Also, am I understanding correctly that this is the counterclockwise terminal of the CCL? The clockwise termini, in that case, being Dhoby Ghaut or Marina Bay.
With the completion of CCL6, the subsequent station on the CCL eastwards will be Keppel. - Instead of "eastwards" I'd use a direction such as "counterclockwise", as CCL6 will complete the loop.
Should the five entrances be mentioned before the concourse is? On further investigation, it seems like the sentence about the five exits may fit well with the second paragraph. E.g. "The station is underneath Telok Blangah Road and has five entrances. HarbourFront station serves various commercial and retail developments..."
closest MRT station to the tourist island of Sentosa. - Do any reliable sources mention approximately how far Sentosa is?
alongside the cultural sites - I'd say "along with the cultural sites", even if "alongside" is used in a physical sense.
dedicated tactile routes that connect the station entrances to the platforms or between the lines - Instead of "between the lines", I would say "or between either line's platforms".
More later. Sorry for the delay. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
This has totally slipped my mind again; sorry about that. I promise to finish up the review tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Public artworks:
Enigmatic Appearances by Ian Woo is a series of line-drawings - What are line drawings? Like line art?
With its "dream-like" quality - as described by whom?
as the beginning or the end - Is it specifically representing either the beginning or the end, or is it both? If it's both then you can just say "terminus".
what Woo captured in his visit to the HarbourFront area - I suppose this means a site visit prior to the station's construction.
Alongside taking photos of the area, he also wrote about his experiences during his trip. - "Alongside" is redundant to "also" (and "alongside" is not generally used at the beginning of sentences like this). I'd say "In addition to taking photos of the area, he wrote about his experiences during his trip."
the LTA intended for the integration of art with the station's design - This can be "the LTA intended to integrate art with the station's design".
Usually working independently, Woo learnt to articulate his thoughts and intentions with the architectural team, - At first, I did not understand this, but I realised it means that Woo was used to working independently. So I would say that instead. "Although Woo was used to working independently, he learnt to articulate his thoughts and intentions with the architectural team..."
The collaboration allowed each other to have deeper insights into each other works - "Each other" is repeated here, and the second usage is grammatically incorrect in that it should be possessive. I'd say "The collaboration allowed Woo and Sheares to have deeper insights into each other's works" (though I don't know if it's Woo and Sheares, Woo and the architectural team).
After approval was given by the architects and the Art Review Panel for his line drawings - I suggest rewriting this in active voice, e.g. "After the architects and the Art Review Panel approved his line drawings..."
Travelling over to oversee the production process - Travelling to the factory, I presume?
waveforms in 3D - I suggest "3D waveforms" or even "three-dimensional waveforms".
The work is intended to reflect the rhythm and flow of human activities,[45] which linked the work to the station's location, human values and the MRT system, - The grammar here is structured such that it actually reads "The work... linked the work". It may be hard to rephrase this. One suggestion would be "The work is intended to reflect the rhythm and flow of human activities;[45] these characteristics linked the work to the station's location, human values and the MRT system."
and hoped to create the waveforms based on the station's environment. - "Hoped" may not be the right word. Maybe "decided" or "intended"
A weekday and weekend were randomly selected, and two assistants recorded the train frequency and passenger traffic on these days - I would condense this to "Two assistants recorded the train frequency and passenger traffic on a randomly selected weekday and weekend."
the CCL was not yet operational when creating the work - The phrase "when creating the work" is implied from the rest of the sentence, so it may be redundant. If it's really necessary, this should instead be "the CCL was not yet operational when the work was completed". Otherwise, it's a dangling modifier.
dependent on the passenger traffic and train frequency - "Dependent on" is technically correct but sounds weird; "based on" may be more proper.
The sculptures are in red that reflects the human rhythm. This also complements the CCL station theme that contrasts against the NEL blue theme. - In this case, these two sentences can probably be combined; e.g. "The sculptures are in red, which not only reflects the human rhythm but also complements the CCL station's theme, contrasting with the NEL's blue theme."
Each fin adopts one of the six red "tones", given via serialism when Ong grouped the fins into sets of six - I think you should mention the grouping of six first, followed by the fact that each fin is a different tone. E.g. "Ong grouped the fins into sets of six and used serialism to give each fin a different red "tone"."
Are only the edges of the fins transparent?
An idea to create an illusion of wave moment had to be dropped - The use of "had to be dropped" here sounds quite casual. I suggest "was discarded".
That's all the prose comments I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
All comments above addressed. Not sure if the sculpture is only transpaent at the edges; the sorce said they are glass fins so maybe? ZKang123 (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look like the source elaborates. It's a minor issue anyway, so I will let it be. Epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


### References
All seem fine. I spot-checked a small sample of the references and these all seem to match the text they are citing. I have also spot-checked the offline sources and they appear to support the text they are citing. Epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


### Images and copyright
All images are freely licensed and comply with Singaporean copyright laws regarding freedom of panorama. Most are taken by the nominator.
I also could not find any copyright violations using the copyvio detector. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)


### General comments
Sorry for the delay. All issues seem to be resolved now, so I will promote this article to GA status. Congratulations. Epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Over the past few weeks, User:Oahiyeel has been adding platform layout diagrams to multiple MRT station articles. I believed that some of them were not notable and removed them, but he added them back, or added statements in the article about them.
Looking at other discussions regarding these layouts (like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2020#Closure_of_2019_station_layout_RFC), users note that such layouts should only be added if the layout is notable (that is, if elements are stated in reliable sources). With regard to the Singapore MRT, I believe that this can be applied as thus:

Layouts for stations in which the track layouts are relatively complex and are mentioned in reliable sources (e.g at Raffles Place MRT station and Tanah Merah MRT station) should be retained, and also mentioned in prose
Layouts for stations with additional features (e.g. cripple sidings) that are described in reliable sources, but are not as complex, should not be added, with the feature just described in prose.
For features in stations that are not mentioned in reliable sources, they should not be present in the article (in either diagram or prose)
Please feel free to comment on how this should be approached.
(Pinging @Oahiyeel: for comment) R22-3877 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, to be clear I did not add back any layout diagrams that were removed. I had created diagrams mostly for interchange stations which contains more than 1 line, or stations with additional features like sidings/crossovers or for turnarounds. I do agree some of these diagrams, especially of non interchanges are quite simple, and have no issues with them being removed if deemed not notable.  - oahiyeel talk 07:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Oahiyeel I understand, but also, especially for the interchanges, I believe that some of the diagrams (like at Outram Park MRT station) don't add much as a whole. IMO, track layouts for most of these should be separated by line, as in many cases, placing multiple lines' track layouts together makes it confusing. R22-3877 (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The whole idea was to show the tracks and platforms in relation to each other at the station. If they were separate layouts then there wouldn't be a point having the diagram as there wouldn't be useful/notable (?) information.  - oahiyeel talk 09:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@Oahiyeel Regarding the interchange diagrams, could you elaborate on how showing the tracks and platforms in relation to each other is useful to the reader (for articles like MacPherson MRT station and Outram Park MRT station? R22-3877 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

In the TEL3 map (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/getting_around/public_transport/rail_network/pdf/tel3_sm-tm.pdf) HarbourFront is written as துறைமுகம், but in the TEL4 map (https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltagov/getting_around/public_transport/rail_network/pdf/SM_TEL4_TM_(Ver150824)_TL.pdf) HarbourFront is written as ஹார்பர்‌ஃபிரண்ட்‌. This causes a problem where old signs and the CCL side of the station uses the old translation, while the updated signs at HarbourFront's NEL platforms uses the new ones.
How do we reflect this change? Thanks! Joofer Jupiter (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)