Template:Did you know nominations/Bishan tunnel flooding

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 Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Bishan tunnel flooding

(

)

... that eight employees from Singaporean train operator SMRT falsified maintenance records, causing a section of tunnels to flood?

ALT1 ~~...that the Bishan tunnel flooding was caused by eight employees falsifying maintenance records, and caused S$2 million of damage?~~

Created/expanded by 1.02 editor (talk). Self-nominated at 08:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

The article is long enough and was expanded at least 5x in due time. It is neutral, and cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports no copyvio issues. The hook (I prefer ALT1) is interesting and well-formatted. Its length is within limit, and its fact is cited inline. The hook says "eight workers", however the source says "eight employees – comprising one senior executive, two managers and five technical staff". Question: Is that correct to name a senior executive and two managers as workers? I will approve the DYK-nom after the point is clarified by a native English speaker. CeeGee 08:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the word 'workers' would refer to people who actually do work (i.e. not only commanding other people) whereas 'employees' would refer to anyone who is employed by a particular employer, hence rendering the work employees more suitable in this case. Thanks for pointing this out I never really considered it before and have changed it in the hook also. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for rewording the hook. It is OK now for me. Good to go. (Maybe the phrase needs to be reworded in the artcile as well.) CeeGee 14:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, and did a thorough edit for English grammar as well as formatted the references. In future, please copy and paste the titles of the articles into the editing window, retaining the capitalization and other punctuation in the titles. I added a "citation needed" tag to the last sentence in the lead, which is not sourced anywhere else in the article. Yoninah (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: sorry for the sketchy English in the article, I have replaced the unsourced sentence with one that is sourced, is there anything else that you require me to do? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 06:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor: thank you. But you don't mention 13 employees in the article, only 8. I changed the lead, but upon reading the source, I think you should clarify the types of people who were fired – the source says "one senior executive, two managers and five technical staff", and also mentions 13 staff. I was going to promote ALT1, but nowhere in the source is the incident directly blamed on the eight maintenance workers, so maybe the hook should speak about the cause in a general way, like the incident was traced to falsified maintenance records... Yoninah (User talk:Yoninah) 09:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: have reworded the sentences to fit the source. Any other issues that I need to fix? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the additional description from the source; there's no need to be terse in a Wikipedia article. Since the incident was blamed on falsified maintenance records and not the eight maintenance workers, the hook should be written this way:
ALT2 ... that the flooding of a tunnel on the Singapore MRT, causing more than S$2 million in damages, was blamed on falsified maintenance records?
ALT2 hook refs verified and cited inline. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)