Wikipedia:Peer review/Ghost stations of the Paris Métro/archive1

Ghost stations of the Paris Métro

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would eventually like to nominate this article as a WP:GAC as I believe it has the potential to become a WP:GA. This is the first article that I have brought up to such a quality and therefore would like feedback on its current state so I may further improve it.

Thanks, Aka042 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Good subject, should appeal to the Wiki railway buffs.

• Is it Métro or métro? Both are used in the lead.

Done. All instances of métro changed to Métro. --Aka042 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Unopened stations: when were these stations constructed?

Done. Added construction dates for Haxo and Porte Molitor. --Aka042 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• "...but a shuttle service between a station on each of these lines was eventually constructed to replace the never-used tunnel." This is hard to follow; can you rephrase so that it is possible to understand what happened and why the tunnel was replaced? And is a shuttle service "constructed"?
• You should not say "today" which is inspecific. Say "as of 2010" or something similar.
• "it closed all but 85 stations" doesn't mean much unless readers are told how many stations there were altogether. Thus, "it closed all but 85 of the xyz stations" would make sense. You say that most of the closed stations opened in "the following years"; that's too vague, could mean five, ten or fifty years - you need to be more precise.
• In general the "Stations closed and later reopened" section is rather muddled up with detail, much of which seems irrelevant to the subject of "ghost stations", for example the information about stations opening for restricted hours, etc.
• There are far too many very short sections in the article, often giving only one or two items of information. These sections need to be merged under a composite title, to give a better prose flow.
• Can a station be "moved"? It can be demolished and then rebuilt on a new site, but "moved" suggests transportability.
• If ref [11] is meant to cover the whole of the "Moved" section, it should be at the end of the section. You have used bullet-point prose in this section, which is not generally approved WP style. The section should be rewritten in straight prose.
• The article would benefit from a complete prose review and copyedit from another editor. The prose is very heavy-footed at times (Example: "At the beginning of World War II, the French government put into action a plan that called for reduced service on the métro network; specifically, it closed all but 85 stations" could read "At the beginning of World War II, the French government activated a plan that reduced service on the métro network to 85 of the xyz stations".); there are also grammatical and punctuation glitches.
• References: please see WP:CITE/ES for guidance on the correct formatting of citations
• The items in the bibliography generally lack publisher information.

I hope that these points are useful. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)