Talk:Paris Métro Line 12/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DavidCane (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First comments:

Line A of Nord-Sud Co.

• Aside from the short statement in the chronology, there is no prior indication that the line A discussed here is what would become Line 12. It would be useful to mention that here and probably in the lead section.
• "...established a new north-south axis of the city"; suggest insert "transport" before "axis"
• You say Berlier's final proposal was a "deep, cylindrical line", but then talk about metal arches. This suggests that the tunnels were not cylindrical. Can this be clarified?
• What were his earlier proposals?
• Why was the line guaranteed heavy traffic? Was there an especial need to travel between the two end points?
• "This second concession opened the door to new demands and risked eventually provoked industrial disorder on the tramway network"; demands from whom and for what? the bit I have bolded needs fixing.
  • Still need to explain what the demands were and from whom.
  • Now you also need to explain what the disorder experienced on the tramway network was.
• "Thus, the "Déclaration d'utilité publique" ("Declaration of Public Utilities") of a 6.216 km of line wasn't declared until 3 April 1905." Why and how does this follow from the previous sentence?
• "place Jules Joffrin" needs a capital.
• "inconsistent foundations"; suggest that "inconsistent strata" or "inconsistent ground conditions" would be better.

The construction and opening of the North South Line

• Where was the first section?
• Suggest you link to station articles.
• Suggest you link drills to tunnel boring machine, but are you sure that at this period it was not a tunnelling shield being used.
• There is an apparent discrepancy between the internal diameter of the tunnel and the size of the tunnel lining segments. The combined length of the twelve segments matches the circumference of the external diameter (5.24 m) rather than the internal diameter (5 m). It might be better to refer to the internal diameter and the thickness of the segments after you mention their lengths. Also, if the segments are 60 cm thick, the internal diameter should be 5.12 m (5.24 - 0.06 - 0.06).
• Was the compressed air working used during the construction of the original tunnel or the brick lining? The chronology is unclear and I suspect from the context it was the former. The compressed air would more likely have been to stop leakage rather than outright collapse. The shield itself would support the area it was working on, but would not be waterproof.
• A digging shield is mentioned here.
• "This is joined by rail to a small belt, which allowed the circulation of the trains"; please explain.
• "On the other hand, one section of the tunnel to three platforms with a central garage converted into the provisional terminus at Notre-Dame-de-Lorette."; please explain.
• The language of the whole last paragraph is weak and needs improvement. For example:
  • "From the beginning, the traffic on the line was important and the rolling stock were quickly improved."; the traffic was important in what way? should this be "significant? Why was the rolling stock quickly improved?

Northern extensions

• Is the extension to Jules Joffrin an extension beyond the Pigalle extension or part of it?
• Were the unknown deposits unknown in the sense that they were unexpected or of an unknown material?
• The US English "railroad" is used here and in one other place, whereas the UK English "railway" is used elsewhere. Standardise on one - suggest "railway" as it is a European article.
• "continued relentlessly" appears to be a mistranslation of the original French "poursuivis au ralenti" which means the opposite "idly".
• "three platforms and two central quays"; again this appears to be a mistranslation. It should be three tracks with two central platforms.

Line A to line 12 of CMP

• What plans to extend line 12? Has this been mentioned before?
• Four carriages would not be enough to improve the service. Again, this is a mistranslation from the French "rames" which means trains.
• Second paragraph is poorly worded. Should add a link to third rail.

Extension to Issy-les-Moulineaux

• The translation here is difficult to follow and some of the phrasing needs improvement:
  • "The convention of 1929 foreshadowed the construction..."; What convention?
  • "movement of the station Porte de Versailles (Paris Métro) towards the suburbs..." would probably be better described as relocated further from the city.
  • "two half stations..." would probably be better described as a station with the platforms staggered by forty metres.
  • "classic two platform station"; try "standard two platform station".
  • "turning area"; suggest "reversing area"
  • Change "fifteen hundred metres" to 1.5 km.
• Make it clear that the stations have platforms 75 metres long.
• Mairie d'Issy is given as the name of one station, what is the name of the other?

From the Second World War to the present

• "The line was designated as a central command point en 1971, then to automatic piloting in 1977, at the time of the refurbishment with modern type 67 iron." Please explain; this appears to be something about a centralised control room and automatic train control and the provision of MF 67 type trains, but it needs better wording.

Route

• Need to change French "13,688 km" to English "13.688 km"
• "While the line is characterised by its zig-zag route, its axis is relatively straight." What does this mean?
• "an important station with three rails" should be "an important station with three tracks"
• "garage and shop"; suggest "depot and workshops"
• "he tunnel runs underneath the northerly railways" What are the northerly railways?
• "a four-tunnel garage" suggest "four tunnel depot"

Station design

• I've copy edited this section. I suggest you add an image of the Nord-Sud style station entrances described here.

Many thanks for these detailed and learned comments. Unfortunately I have only limited access to the internet at the moment, though I will attend to them a thte earliest convenience. --Ktlynch (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I just tackled the comments on Line A of Nord-Sud Co. Most issues were little translation problems, some copy-editing of my modifications may be required. As for the metal arches it aims at describing the London metro. I'm not even sure the French wording is correct. I need to read... Actually I now have clarified most points below. The inital plan for line 12 is not mentioned anywhere, but I need to check the references to fix that point. --Anneyh (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailled review. I think I took into accounts the comments up to the Route section, except the description of London's tube and the extraction method. --Anneyh (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Comments:
General

• Put the original name immediately after the current name in the lead - something like "Paris Métro Line 12 (originally Line A) is one of..."
  • It's still not quite right. Bolding of alternate names must be in the first paragraph not the second.
• The translation from the French gives us phrasing such as "the station XXX", which should be reworded to "XXX station". I have fixed some of these, but there may be others.
  • Partly fixed. Now have the ungrammatical format "the XXX station" in many places where the leading "the" is not necessary.
• There are lots of place names which could be linked.
• Replace French chervon quotes with English quotes.
• Remove full stops at the ends of captions unless they contain more than one sentence.
• Route map: suggest a note in the caption indicating that the stations which a white are transfers
  • The list of stations section in the French version has not been carried over. It might be useful to include this under the route section. This could probably be done as a simple bullet list
• notes 11 and 27 should be in the references section with the other books
• The fact that the area of Saint-Denis has many TV studios and note 36 are irrelevant.
• note 39 does not seem to provide a citation that the planning body wants to give the station the name "Proudhon-Gardinoux-Place du Front Populaire", just that it will be located at the square.

Formal bit

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Some work still to do.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is looking better, but there are still areas where the language is stilted and unnatural due to the translation from the original French. I suggest a thorough re-read and copyedit to ensure natural English. Avoid terms like "relatively", "rivalling", "important" (see WP:WTW). The lead section is short for an article of this size: WP:LEAD suggests three to four paragraphs and I think this could be enhanced a bit.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources used appear to be reliable where they can be checked, but try to find some English ones. Some of the references are old (up to 2005), are there any more recent equivalents that can be found? Need sources for dates in chronology and the renaming section (they may be elsewhere in the text, but should be here for ease of reference). Some of the web references need publishing dates and all need access dates.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Need to update for what has happened recently - usage statistics since 2004, current status of plans for extensions, given the global recession

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The licensing of the older photographs and the two diagrams state that they are in the public domain due to the death of the author being over 70 years ago. As they give no source and state the authors are unknown, it is impossible to say that this is true for certain. The diagrams and the photo of the tunnel construction are possibly OK, given that they are likely to be 100 years old, but the photos of the trains are dubious. You might want to contact the poster (User:Clicsouris) to find out where s/he got them.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately a fail. Minor improvements have been made, but after two weeks there are still considerable issues remaining with the prose, the missing data for recent years and the non-free images.