I love running, hiking, playing video games, and playing the piano.

As far as piano, it's not only fun, but has been proven to increase mental ability in math^[1], which is my favorite subject, so it's a double-positive.

When I use Wikipedia in the future, I will edit articles and try to make them better.

Since I was a baby, I've ridden the S-tog, or the Danish S-train line, that covers the Copenhagen urban area. This is the area surrounding Copenhagen, the capital city of Denmark. Every time I ride them, I get the same feeling that I've gotten since I was a kid; the overall experience of riding the train (the sound of it, the design of it, and the variety of landscape whizzing by) has fascinated me since. This is exactly why I chose to look at the S-tog Wikipedia page. This page was already pretty optimized over the years, so I looked around a bit more and, because my family is from Køge, I visited the Køge station page on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: it's citations, it's completeness, and it's age.

I've noticed that in the Wikipedia articles that are the most refined, there's lots of citations; these verify the facts that are being purveyed in the article. In this article though, there's only one citation, and it's not even for the basic information provided about the train station. This citation is about a statue that's in a square near the station, and the article is quite old, and pretty outdated. The station has had some extreme remodeling done in recent years, along with a nearby shopping mall, so I'm not even sure if this fountain is still there; it's most likely not, which leads me to the next section: Completeness.

Like I said in the last section Citations, there's only one citation, and it has nothing to do with the information provided about the actual train station. This is a great hit to the articles overall completeness. Alongside this, there's only two paragraphs, two photos, and basic information about the services the train provides; in other articles, even small ones such as this, there's much more overall information. There's not even any basic history of the station and, besides the paragraph about the basic location and service information of the train, the only other paragraph is about a fountain set up in a square near the station in 1993 by Pontus Kjerrman. Pontus Kjerrman doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of his own, and the fountain really is an irrelevant section of the page. Half of the article is about it; it's over-represented.

On top of having only one citation, which is old, and overall not being complete, the Age of the article is another issue. It is completely not up to date. In recent years, the train station has had an extreme remodel, including a new massive bridge that runs over the road by the station which connects the square, the station, and the parking lot/industrial area behind it; I've seen it in real life. Along with this massive change, the ticket buying area also had fresh pavement installed. I feel like this information should be a massive topic on the Wikipedia page, as it's a big change that occurred recently, but it doesn't even make a single appearance once.

Overall, I'd rate this page as "in need of love". It has basic information about the train station, which isn't cited, and is now outdated as the station had a massive remodel. On top of this, it has a useless paragraph about a fountain that's barely even near the train station that was put there in 1993, which was cited using an old article by a guy with no Wikipedia page of his own, and the fountain is most likely moved by now.