Wikipedia:Peer review/Hyde bus station/archive1

Hyde bus station
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I created it and want feedback.

Thanks, RCSprinter123 (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is the first bus station article I've looked at. I gather from your user page that this is a major interest for you, and that you have already created several bus articles and worked on others. Keep up the good work.

With regard to this article, here are a few isues for you to consider:
 * The appearance of the article is rather spoiled by the huge white space that occurs between the text and the table in the Services section. There are several things you can do about this:
 * Shorten the infobox; at present a lot of the information in there is unnecessary. We don't need coordinates or grid references for urban locations, and these should be removed. The "Travel centre: Yes" and "Annual usage: unknown" headings are useless and should also be removed.
 * Lengthen the text, particularly the History section which is rather thin at present. The sort of questions that come to mind are: How long has there been a bus station at Hyde? Apart from its "draughty shelters", what was the previous station like? Why was it thought necessary to replace it? A little more research could provide information on this sort of question.
 * Shift the 1999 image to after the main table. This may be unnecessary if you can extend the text enough, but if you can't, placing the image after the table gives a much neater appearance. I have tried out all these things and can assure you the article looks much better.
 * You need to give more attention to the prose. This is an encyclopedia, and must be factual and accurate. You have some vague statements, like "approximately 11 bus services and as a major stop for approximately 4 bus services", "Hyde bus station opened years ago...", "lots of services", "There are several services that use Hyde Bus Station..." None of these are acceptably encyclopedic, and need to be replaced by precise information. Also, re the caption in the second picture, I'm sure the M67 motorway was built long before 1999.
 * The article is not adequately referenced at present. For example, where do the facts in the second paragraph of the History section come from? You should also study WP:CITE/ES for information about how to format citations.
 * Minor point: the link on Marple leads to a disambiguation page.

This is a promising start. I see you have self-graded it as a B. I don't think, at the moment, it can be classed above Start, and have amended it accordingly. The classification can be reconsidered after the above issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: As I an not able to watch individual PR pages, please use my talkpage if you want to raise any issues arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)