Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weesperplein metro station/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2023 [1].

Weesperplein metro station

Nominator(s): ~Styyx^Talk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Weesperplein. Universiteit, Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Uitstappen rechterzijde. Overstappen op tram 1, 7 en 19." — One of the busiest metro stations in Amsterdam, with a hidden twist under it (literally). It was initially the terminus of all lines of the city. I hope to bring this to FA status after getting through a GAN and a (not-so thorough) PR. ~Styyx^Talk? 13:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Styyx, and welcome to FAC. Just noting that as a first time nominator at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a check for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Extensive tests were carried out in September before the station opened on 16 October." - which year? If it was 1977, reword the previous sentence to clarify how a train passed through fully nine months before the station opened.

Indeed 1977, which I added to the sentence. The body does clarify that the structure was mostly complete by 1974.

"The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018. A new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." => "The station was renovated again during 2017 and 2018, when a new elevator and two additional staircases between the hall and tracks were constructed." (merging two short and rather perfunctory sentences)
"was used as a fallout shelter with the capacity of 5,000 people" => "was used as a fallout shelter with a capacity of 5,000 people"
"The shelter wasn't maintained" => "The shelter was not maintained" (no contractions per MOS)
"An extra area for a platform below the one used by East Line was created" => "An extra area for a platform below the one used by the East Line was created"
"5,000 of which inside the shelter" => "5,000 of them inside the shelter"
"weren't maintained from 1999 onwards" => "were not maintained from 1999 onwards" (as above)
"The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of station" => "The former shelter can be accessed via sliding doors at the top level of the station"
"Weesperplein was the first station to start being constructed" => "Weesperplein was the first Amsterdam Metro station to start being constructed"
"A metro was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977" => "A train was first rolled into the underground tunnels on 25 January 1977"
"when the Amsterdam Metro doesn't run" => "when the Amsterdam Metro does not run"
"This would make Weesperplein be a station" => "This would make Weesperplein a station"
"with 36373 passengers per day" => "with 36,373 passengers per day"
Don't suppose there are any newer figures than 2018.....?

Nope. Figures of mainline railway stations are made public every year, but metro stations are not. They decided to publish it once in 2019 using data after the new line 52 opened and never did again. So the only thing I can find is 2018, nothing before, nothing after.

"Luchtspiegelingen of Matthijs van Dam" => "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam"
"Verplaatsing of Charles Bergmans" => "Verplaatsing by Charles Bergmans"
"Located on the station hall" => "Located in the station hall" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude! I've made the changes accordingly and responded to a few. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

wat leuk iets uit nederlands hier om te zien! and cool to welcome a new nominator as well.
as noted in the GA review, the infobox pic could do with alt text, some other pix too
Added alt to infobox. I think all others have alt texts already?
indeed, done Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The station was designed by two architects.." suggest starting the article body proper with "Weesperplein metro station was designed by two architects.."
Done.
Then next sentence should prob start "It" Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed.
i found the first two pix rather dull, perhaps we can spice it up with a metro map, also useful for context
Where would you want it? The map was in the article before I expanded it from a stub. I actually wanted to retain it in the "Services" section but that messed up the table used there and I couldn't figure a way out of it.
Yes I saw a version in the stub. Hmmm I'm not bothered where, maybe try a few options out? Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is only space for it in #Layout (permalink). I'm very close in getting sandwich when it's on the left. I can imagine it being way worse with Vector 2022 (given that it removes the TOC). I don't want to remove the picture of the unused section since it's not open to public.
OK let's see what others think about it Mujinga (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
given smooth curves to "guide" passengers - who is saying guide here? does it need to be quoted?
Well, the writers of the book say so. :p But on a serious note, I don't know if a wall guiding people is normal.
If you are quoting you need to say who said it, in this case for a single word, I don't think it's worth mentioning the authors. "Guide" makes sense but maybe just change it to ... "direct" ? Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, makes sense.
say albert heijn is a supermarkt for those who don't know hamsters
While Albert Heijn is a supermarket, their To Go brand doesn't have large stores since it's to go. Added convenience store instead.
good point on to go, I'd suggest saying "an Albert Heijn To Go convenience store" instead of "a convenience store of Albert Heijn To Go". You took away the convenience store link? I'm unbothered either way on that point. Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added the link as well but wouldn't mind if it was removed.

"In addition, Weesperplein is the only station to have a third reserve track" - can you explain what that means?
Explained based on source.
source also talked about how that could be useful in emergencies, do you think that is worth adding? Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Cool Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing bicycle parking racks.[9] - where did the bike parking go?
This only happened at one of the entrances. Corrected.
thanks. you missed out "of" and I'd suggest changing greenery to flowers or shrubs, whatever fits the source Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Done. Flowers it is.
Cool Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"When all lines apart from the East Line, including the East–West line, were cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was used as a fallout shelter" suggest something more like "After the East–West line was cancelled by the municipality on 19 March 1975,[12] the area was intended to be used as a fallout shelter"
Done.
"were cancelled by the municipality " either here or later I think you need a few more sentences for completeness on why the construction was controversial and why the lines were cancelled, since it's a big part of Amsterdam history
I think that's already done in #Construction. Let me know if that's not enough.
for my feeling more is needed, but feel free to wait to see what other reviewers suggest Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was expected to take "4 to 5 years" to finish the station - I don't think you need quotation marks here or if you do, you need to say who said it
Removed.
"The station was reported to be almost completed by June 1974, but that operations would start years later.[20] During the digging process of the station, two former freshwater storage basements were found. Inside the Singelgracht are 33 of such basements, but not much is known of them as they are not in use.[21]" - needs rewriting, "but that" and "33 of such" don't read well
Reworded first sentence. Is "33 of these" any better?
"Inside the Singelgracht are 33 of these basements, but not much is known of them as they are not in use" - it's better but I'm still confused, would under the singelgracht be better? Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. It's the part of the city that falls inside the Singelgracht that has 33 basements (so pretty much the entire historic city centre), not just basements physically under the canal. Clarified.
Great I now uunderstand, I was thinking of Singelgracht as a street not the area Mujinga (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A train was first rolled" is rolled a technical term or Dutchglish?
I don't think that really makes sense in Dutch (not the way the source uses it). I'm not sure but, rolling stock tends to... roll? I'll have to figure that one out.
indeed we say "rolling stock" but for my feeling we don't say trains roll, sounds too passive for me. I'd say trains drive or pass by, but again happy to see what other reviewers say. Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Braille patterns were installed on the handrails at the station in 1984 to assist blind and visually impaired people.[28] On 12 July 1999, a high-speed tram of line 51 caught fire at the Weesperplein station due to a blocked disc brake. The tram was carrying no passengers at the time. The smoke caused all levels of the station to be evacuated.[29] Two people were taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation, but were discharged quickly after their condition was determined to be minor.[30]" this is a bit proseline and could be rewritten into longer, joined sentences
I think it's mostly the part about the fire that is an issue? Done.
Yeah I agree that's better, nice one. Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Supply of new and disposal of old materials was done at night, when the Amsterdam Metro does not run, by using the rails, to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks." - "to prevent congestion of the roads with trucks" reads awkwardly, suggest rephrasing (and you have congestion in the next sentence as well)
Rewritten. Also moved the next sentence in a different position.
Nice that's better. "This was done in order to prevent congesting roads around the city with trucks" - I'dm suggest rewriting that to "This was done in order to avoid creating traffic jams above ground" Mujinga (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"The quality of the repairs was found to have " - found by whom, since you then give a direct quote ... also this paragraph is proseline again, needs rewriting
Rewritten.
It's getting better but I'm still not keen on "In 2011 ... In 2014 ... In April 2017", feel like too much of a list. Mujinga (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread it as only the section you quoted needing rewriting and not the whole paragraph. I made a very slight tweak but will look further into it.
Made another minor change in wording to remove the first "in".
works for me now! Mujinga (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
lead: suggesting flipping paragraphs 2 and 3 round
I was a bit on the edge but I think swapping them around indeed makes more sense.
"In 2018, the station was reported to be "somewhat ready" in case a new East–West line was planned" - reported by who and we need the Dutch in the references. also re " like it was originally intended in the 1970s." suggest "as originally intended"
Done.
bearing in mind the discussion in the GA review, I would suggest re-adding GVB as the acronym for Gemeente Vervoerbedrijf, both because you have "GVB tram: 1, 7, 19 Bus transport GVB bus: N85, N86 (night)" and because GVB is what it is commonly known as
Added (back).
auto peer veiewer suggests: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 40 metres, use 40 metres, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 40 metres.
Was mostly not an issue since I used {{Convert}}. I think the example you mentioned is the only one that wasn't (to avoid repetition).
As it stands, I have issues with the article meeting criteria 1a and 1c. I think this is a GA class article which needs a bit more work to get to FA prose standard. Doing the peer review was a good step towards this, shame it wasn't more helpful. So I'd oppose for now but happy to revisit. In future perhaps you could ask the guild of copy editors to have a look. I'd also suggest reviewing FA candidates yourself as a way to see how things work. Mujinga (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
best practice to give "underground labyrinth" in original dutch as well Mujinga (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Nice work Styyx! Happy to support on prose now Mujinga (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

I thought i'd do a source review and spotchecks, it's my first time doing this so helpful advice would be welcome. I used a variety of checks, including trying out User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck. I also read Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC and User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You.
Looking at this version
I can't find the relevant bit of the MOS right now, but the foreign langauge titles need to have an (your) [english translation] afterwards, for example: 3 "Waarom vinden we de stations Lelylaan en Muiderpoort zo onaangenaam? 'Reizigers willen gezien worden'" ["Why do we find the Lelylaan and Muiderpoort stations so unpleasant? 'Travellers want to be seen'"] or similar
Done, though skipped a few since I don't think translation a few of them were necessary. Let me know if you think a specific ref still needs a translation.
this looks great now Mujinga (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography is not alphabetically listed
Ah, so that is the correct way.
For ref4 better to have a third party reference, you might have to change the sentence a bit, then for example maybe use this or this.
Swapped with In de buurt. The other source you gave only confirms the sandwich shop, not the Albert Heijn To Go store.
Needing the padlock to show they are paywalled : ref35
Added.
User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck gives "Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);" for some newspapers, that is fine because you consistently haven't given ISSN. and it gives "Missing archive link" for delpher links, that's ok because delpher is itself the archive. "van Vollenhoven 2000, p. 8–9. P/PP error? pp. 8–9."
Added pp.
Otherwise sources are high quality and formatting is good, not finding any copyvio as I go Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review pass Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a check at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Source_review_check and Nikkimaria noted that van 't Hoog is a Masters thesis and therefore not a high quality source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Luckily it's not doing very much so should be easy to replace Mujinga (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imported source from Amsterdam Metro. Note that the source doesn't mention Weesperplein specifically but rather all stations of the line, if that isn't a problem.
Nice one, that's a better source. I do notice it says Ben Spängberg not Ben Spangberg, so we can do that too. Is it worth adding that "designed, like all the stations on the East line," or similar? Mujinga (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Spotchecks - pass

Looking at this version

2a ok
2b quote for underground labyrinth ok
5 ok
7 AGF
8 ok
16 quote can be verified but prob not needed
24a needs to be from 23 seconds to cover the cited info
Changed.
24b "For the first three years" not covered by source
The video says "de eerste jaren", so the first few years. Adjusted.
28 all good
32 looks like you are drawing on "Intern wordt geconstateerd dat de kwaliteit van het geleverde werk tekortschiet en regelmatig over moet worden gedaan. Vanwege asbest is bij station Weesperplein een vertraging ontstaan van circa 2 maanden" - I would say "The quality of the repairs was found to have "fallen short [of standards]" and had to be redone several times. The asbestos caused delays in metro operations for two months" needs rewriting. You don't need the quote or should say who said it (namely the internal review). "redone several times" isn't quite right, it would seem the repairs had to be carried out regularly (regelmatig). Although WP:NONENG can be read in different ways, I think it's good practice to provide the Dutch text as a |quotation in the citation when putting direct quotes in the article body (although in this specific case I also don't think you need the quotation) - this is something I did at We Are Here (collective) as an example
Reworded the sentence a bit.
33 all good
38 all good interms of verifiability, but can you add the Dutch quoted in "|quotation" in the reference, per NONENG
Added quote.
39 the quote should be given in Dutch but also i think it's a bit of stretch from "Een van de stations ligt er al. Een beetje dan" to "somewhat ready". and the quotation again isn't supernecessary here
Removed quoting. Somewhat done seems like a better translation.
42 same thing for quotation per NONENG, I can find it in the source as " als je door het plafond heen omhoog kon kijken" although I'm not sure if it needs quoting actually
Removed quoting.
Having taken away the quotes you need to rephrase what it says otherwise it's plaigirising what the soruce says Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually really like the wording of the quote and couldn't come up with anything better, so I went through the other route and added |quotation.
The issue now becomes who said the quote. Right now it looks like wikipedia is saying that, so you need to add who said it, or (probably easier to be honest) rephrase Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, I think.
The quoting issue is resolved but now it switches to a concern over criterion 1a, quality of prose. Currently we have "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam has 12 panels showing Weesperstraat and Sarphatistraat seen from below, with roads, cars and clouds, giving the feeling of looking through the ceiling of the station. The panels were placed on the ceiling of the platform in 1977, but were removed in 2010 due to fire safety measures. The panels were installed back eight years later in 2018, on the ceiling of the station hall." - I'd suggest editing to something like "Luchtspiegelingen by Matthijs van Dam is composed of 12 panels showing Weesperstraat and Sarphatistraat seen from below. The view of roads, cars and clouds gives the illusion of looking up through the station to the outside. The panels were placed on the ceiling at platform level in 1977 and were removed in 2010 due to fire safety concerns. They were reinstalled eight years later, this time on the ceiling of the station hall." Mujinga (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can better that wording.
44 all good
49 primary source but purely informational so OK
References are generally lining up well, a few quibbles including the quotations Mujinga (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one query open on spotchecks, regarding 42 Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mujinga and bedankt for the comments. I spread it out over a few edits but all of them have been addressed or responded if I'm not mistaken (which I may be). ~Styyx^Talk? 13:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work Styyx, thanks for the prompt answers. I've struck out the comments I feel are completed and replied on the others. Source review is a pass, and spotchecks there's just one query on 42. Mujinga (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as a note, I'm going to reformat this discussion per MOS:INDENTMIX hope that's ok Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm having issues to strike through done comments, so I'll say what I still see open is the "In 2011 ... In 2014 ... In April 2017" query and the discussion on spotcheck 42 Mujinga (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool thanks for the edits Styyx, now it's just an additional question re 42 and a new one regarding 't Hoog as a source Mujinga (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great that's pass from me on spotchecks and sources, happy to revisit if any concerns are raised or new sources added Mujinga (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT

Will hopefully start on this tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend a caption for the image in the infobox, the Commons description of "Lower floor of the Weesperplein metro station with the tracks" would suffice.
Added.
Recommend using the "rebuilt" parameter in the infobox to mention the rebuildings in 2011 and 2017-2018.
2011 was not a very significant renovation, but added 2017–2018.
"The first metro train went through the station in January 1977." This may be misleading, as upon reading this you'd assume that was when the station opened, and you only clarify in the following sentence. Can this be made more explicit? For example, maybe say the first test train reached the station in January 1977?
Changed.
"An additional platform below the existing one was also built for a potential East–West Line, but was instead used as a fallout shelter with a capacity of 5,000 people when this line was cancelled in 1975."
Done.
Can we have a few sentences for the context in which the station (and by extension, the metro line) were designed? We just immediately start with the station being designed, with no context as to when and why the metro line was first planned and funded?
Added a new section on the background of things.
"An aerial photo" should be "Aerial photos" since we have two.
Not needed anymore.
I like your solution better, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"For the first few years, units that came into the Weesperplein were put onto the other track with a switch that was located just after the station to run the other direction to Bijlmermeer." This is kind of awkwardly written, and I'm not certain what it means. Was this trains just reversing direction, or was there a different line to Bijlmermeer? The name Bijlmermeer doesn't appear anywhere before this sentence, so there seems to be context missing.
Indeed just turning around. Made a change for that. Also added info on the line(s) that ran through the station at the time (which is sourced to Ref 27, conveniently already there, so no source hijacking).
"While all other metro stations on the East Line have an island platform, an exception was made for Weesperplein as it was supposed to be the station where two lines would intersect each other." Please incorporate a link to Interchange station here.
Didn't know that existed, great one.
"This also resulted in a larger station hall." is a very short sentence, which could be merged with the previous sentence.
Done.
"In addition, while the rest of the metro system runs on double-track, Weesperplein is the only station to have a third reserve track in between those two. This track can be used in case of an emergency." Try something like "Weesperplein is the only Amsterdam Metro station to have a third track, for emergency use."
Do we have any photos which show this third track? Is it between the two station tracks? The track layout is somewhat unclear to me.
No photos; it's not really at the station but rather on the edge of it. It's in between the tracks as you said, but that is already made clear in its current form ("[...] third reserve track in between those two"), so I don't understand the suggestion above to rewrite the sentence.
Amsterdam Amstel station is linked at the second mention in the body, but not the first; this should be reversed.
Swapped.
Will continue today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got busier than I expected today, but will continue tomorrow. Expect to nitpick prose and content a bit more but likely to support once that's done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure guilder is not supposed to be capitalized.
Done.
"Served by metro lines 51, 53 and 54 of the Amsterdam Metro," The first instance of "metro" can be deleted here.
Done.
Consider putting the adjacent stations and services template into the infobox, as with Grand Central Terminal.
Done.
"In 2004, the equipments were removed" the equipment was removed.
Done.
Good job with the background section, it really enhances the article by giving context.
"Testing of the regular metro operations started in late August 1977" Remove "the" as it is not needed here.
Done.
"For the first few years, units that came into the Weesperplein" Recommend "trains" instead of "units".
Done.
"At Bijlmermeer the line would split into two, with one ending at Gaasperplas and the other at Holendrecht." Suggest rewriting as "At Bijlmermeer the line split into two, with one line ending at Gaasperplas and the other at Holendrecht."
Done.
"The section towards Centraal station was opened later on 11 October 1980 and Weesperplein no longer was a terminus for the lines." This was an extension of the line beyond Weesperplein?
Yes.
"On 12 July 1999, a high-speed tram" Why do you use tram in this paragraph, instead of metro?
The mess of this system, you could get stuff like this. :) Clarified.
"but were discharged quickly after their condition was determined to be minor." But were discharged quickly after their injuries were determined to be minor.
Done.
Suggest linking Asbestos abatement where you talk about asbestos being found in 2011.
Why are we only introduced to GVB in the 2010s section? Weren't they the operator ever since the station opened?
Added earlier.
There are no bus connections during the day, only at night? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Trainsandotherthings! I wasn't at home for the past week and was only now able to implement your final suggestions. ~Styyx^Talk? 18:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I will give this another readthrough tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busier than normal irl but I will get to this later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, finally had time to sit down and look at this, and I am happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"The repairs conducted at the station during a renovation". Optional: delete "The".
Reads better without.
"Weesperplein and other metro station on the East Line". Should that be 'stations'?
Correct. Done.
" it was supposed to be the station where ...". "the" → 'a'.
Done.
"In 2018, bicycle parking racks outside one of the entrances were replaced by flowers." Not sure why this is in "Design". It may be appropriate for "2010s".
It's the "Layout" section, and one could argue that the entrances are a part of that. Not going to fight too much on this one.
"The doors are waterproof" → 'The doors are watertight'.
Done.
"The doors ... undergo annual testing". Still? In spite of the shelter not having been maintained since 1999?
Yeah. The source actually also adds the "still" when saying that.
"Based on a 1960 report concluding the need of a rail system within Amsterdam to move large amounts of people". This needs rephrasing, for both grammar and flow.
Rewritten.
"The bureau released five reports until 1966". "until" → 'by'.
Done.
"laid out plans for ... The plan was presented". plans or plan?
I mean, I assume they had multiple plans but only the final one was presented. Changed.
"250 million guilder." Is it known approximately what this would have equated to in US dollars?
That would be a lot of conversions (and confusion). Using this converter by the International Institute of Social History, it appears that 250 million guilder in 1968 was worth 113.45 million euro at that time, and would have been 605 million euro in 2021. And then covert that to USD, but which value?

Personally I would go with the standard annual average conversion rate, but if you want to drop it, that's fine.

"while operations were expected to start years later." Is it known how many years later?
Nope. I haven't found anything specific.
"During the digging process of the station" → 'During the process of digging the station'.
Done
"not much is known of them as they are not in use". Is it known, approximately, either when they were used or when they stopped being used?
Added mid-19th century. I don't know if the wording is correct now though.
"A train was first rolled into the underground tunnels". "rolled" implies that it was not moving under its own power, is that correct? If not, perhaps 'driven, or 'operated in' or similar.
It was moving on its own power. Funny enough, then mayor Ivo Samkalden was driving the metro (with an actual driver present of course). Don't know if that's worth adding.

Your call, but it seems worth half a sentence.

"Weesperplein no longer was a terminus for the two lines" → 'Weesperplein was no longer a terminus for the two lines'
Done.
"Two people were taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation". Delete "the".
Done.
"which delayed metro operations for two months". Delayed or prevented?
Prevented. Though operations had been halted for the renovation in general anyway, but the asbestos extended that.
" Concrete was replaced with glass to make it spacious, lighter and clearer." Do you mean ' Concrete was replaced with glass to make it seem spacious, lighter and clearer.'?
Yeah.

Very neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"to make it seem spacious, lighter and clearer." Try 'to make it seem lighter and more spacious.'

I am supporting anyway, but will leave you with the three thoughts above. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

The artwork image should probably be tagged with commons:Template:FoP-Nederland. Where in the source of File:Weesperplein aerial photo, 1975.jpg is the licence given? ALT text might be a bit undescriptive. Images seem to be well-placed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus! I added the template. About the other one, the parameters "Rechthebbende" (Copyright holder) and "Gebruiksvoorwaarden" (Terms of use) are important. So this image is owned by the city archives and has no ToU. Once you click the download button it says "Deze afbeelding is vrij beschikbaar voor hergebruik", so it's free to use. They also have a general page saying that images owned by the archives can simply be downladed and used in "eventual publications". Now that I think of it, maybe PD-author is more appropriate? ~Styyx^Talk? 09:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a link to a page that states the author's interest, yes, Pd-author would work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~Styyx^Talk? 10:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.