@tanguatlay,
tanguatlay wrote:Could you please elaborate on the misleading part?
The misleading part is the use of 'soon' in the first sentence. 'Soon' has a indefinite meaning of 'not a long time later' but used alone it does not mean "immediately". Even 'very soon' does not convey immediacy. If the train was going to wait for an hour in the station, 'soon after' the train arrived could mean five minutes after. 'Soon after you plant some seeds, shoots will appear.' could be used when the delay is days or weeks. Thus the sentence is a poor candidate for illustrating the meaning of 'no sooner than' which is used when something happens immediately after something else, with no delay whatsoever.
tanguatlay wrote:I am surprised that "No sooner did..." and "No sooner had..." versions have the same meaning.
You can use either 'no sooner did' followed by the base form of the verb (e.g. 'arrive'), or 'no sooner had' followed by the past participle (e.g. 'arrived'). In each case you are linking a past action or event (e.g. the train's arrival) with one that immediately followed it (e.g. the people rushing).
No sooner did I open I my eyes than I saw a pretty nurse.
No sooner had I opened I my eyes than I saw a pretty nurse.
tanguatlay wrote:The teacher entered the classroom. Suddenly the students stood up.
The above sentence seems illogical to me because of the word "Suddenly" used in relation to the teacher entering the classroom.
Yes, this is completely wrong. 'Immediately' or 'at once' would be correct. The author of that web site clearly does not have a good understanding of English.