Wikipedia:Peer review/London Underground/archive3

London Underground
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because we have come to a conclusion that there are several things wrong with it. It has tags all over it, and we either want to fix it so it stays A, get it downgraded to B, or back up to an FA!
 * Previous peer review

Please give comments!

Thanks,  BG  7   02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I gave a fairly detailed peer review of this a little less than two weeks ago - have all of those issues been addressed? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Since you apparently didn't bother to read the second peer review, here it is (mostly) again. The semi-automated peer review has a lot of good MOS suggestions. Here are some more: 1 Rail network 1.1 Individual lines 1.2 CLosed stations and parts of lines 2 Operation 2.1 Operational numbers (figures) 3 Technical (engineering) 4 History 4.1 First plans 4.2 Metropolitan Railway 4.3 Metropolitan District Railway 4.4 First Tubes und Electrification 4.5 Expansion 4.6 Second World War 4.7 Further development 5 Future plans 5.1 New rolling stock 5.2 Cooling (air conditioning) 5.3 Expansion of the lines / network 6 Accidents and catastrophes 7 The logo 8 Map of the network 9 Mind the Gap 10 Fare system 10.1 Oyster 11 Handicapped access 12 See also...
 * For as long as this is, it has few refs and there are several sections STILL marked as needing refs. I would make sure every paragraph has a ref, as does every quote or statistric or extraordinary claim.
 * The references that are there need to be formatted to meet WP:CITE - for example internet refs need url, title, publisher, author if known, and date accessed. cite web helps, as do the other cite templates.
 * NEW ONE - some of the refs do not seem to meet WP:RS - what makes emmaclarke.com a reliable source, for example?
 * I think a map of the whole system early on would be very useful.
 * The lead is very choppy, but I would fix the whole article and then make sure the Lead summarizes it properly.
 * The FAR Featured article review/London Underground/archive1 has some excellent suggestions for improvement
 * The German Wikipedia article is featured there and offers some idea on organization that are lacking here. Here is a quick and dirty translation of their Table of Contents:

Hope this helps Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)