Wikipedia:Featured article review/London Underground/archive1

London Underground edit

Review commentary edit

Messages left at Stewartadcock, UK notice board, London, Trains, Rapid transit, and Underground. Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has several major problems. There are many stubby subsections, the "History" section has no text in the main section, the citation style is inconstant, the books cited aren't using footnotes, and there's a {{fact}} after one of the statements. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Numerous short, stubby sections and one or two-sentence paragraphs, See also need attention (some could be linked in to article), undercited and References are blue links that need to be converted to a bibliographic style, external jumps, possible External link farm, and several different means of referring to See also/Further within text that should use templates. The article appears to have grown piecemeal, without organization; rewrite needed. Sandy (Talk) 02:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking more closely at it, sections such as "Terrorism" are far from comprehensive. It doesn't mention 7/7, or other specific attacks that have occored on the system. I would love to fix it myself, but my LUL knowledge is quite weak. -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is faulty throughout. Here are random examples.
- "an all electric railway system that covers much of the conurbation of Greater London and some neighbouring areas." "All eclectric" must be hyphenated. Remove "the conurbation of". Instead of "some", can it be more explicit?
- "The Underground currently serves 274 stations and runs over 408 km (253 miles) of lines.[1] There are also a number of former stations and tunnels that are now closed." I think the second sentence is clumsy. Can it be reduced and merged with the first?
- "In 2004–2005, total passenger journeys reached a record level of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million per day." Why not remove the redundant wording and simplify? "In 2004–05, passenger journeys reached a record of 976 million, an average of 2.67 million a day."
- "... by 1880 the expanded 'Met' was carrying 40 million passengers a year. Other lines swiftly followed,..." Trains are swift, but the construction of railway lines is less appropriate for that epithet.
- The title "Into the 20th century" doesn't go well before "The 1930s and 40s".

I haven't read the rest, but can tell that this needs an overhaul, like a train engine. Would be great to keep as a FA.

Tony 13:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing you wrote that essay. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have issues with the references section. They should all be converted to something other than a bunch of hyperlinks - author name, title of the page, etc. Hbdragon88 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I cleaned up the Main and See also templates, and started cleaning up the footnotes and references so that editors working on the article would understand work needed on refs. I also removed external jumps. Sandy (Talk) 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, very little progress on numerous issues raised. Sandy (Talk) 18:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are stub sections (2a), consistency of citations (1c). Marskell 15:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove The article is still a mess. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unfortunately. Citation problems and stubby areas here and there. Ter e nc e Ong 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, stubby sections, undercited, cite tags, External link farm, and footnotes/references not done correctly (blue link URLs). Sandy (Talk) 00:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Sandy. LuciferMorgan 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]