Jump to content

Talk:Trams in Olsztyn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Trams in Olsztyn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lede

[edit]
  • The lede should be expanded a bit - it should be a summary of the major points of the article, including the history, network, and rolling stock.
    •  Done
  • further one under construction and one planned1 additional under construction. The planned line can be added once it's actually under construction.
    •  Done
  • Same with the other two uses of "further" in the infobox - I'd replace them with "additional"
    •  Done
  • The infobox is the only time that "LRV" is used instead of "tram". It should be consistent - either use "LRV" for any mentions of the modern vehicles, or just use "tram" everywhere. Either should be fine.
    •  Done
  • Move all history to the end of the lede, after the details about the network and rolling stock.
    •  Done

History

[edit]
  • Are any images available of the historic network?
    •  Done
  • Split the second sentence (The network was...) into two sentences.
    •  Done
  • Are there articles on any of the geographic points listed? (If there is an article on plwiki but not enwiki, {{ill}} can be used.)
    •  Done
  • Is any information available about the planning and construction of the current network and the new line? That section is rather short for GA quality.
    •  Done
  • This map makes it look as though the new line will have two services (4 and 5). However, that contradicts the Routes section of this article, which says that 4 is under construction and 5 planned. Again, some more detail here would be great.
    •  Done
  • September 2012, scheduledSeptember 2012 and was scheduled
    •  Done
  • Is there an article about the Kortowo university to link to?
    •  Done
  • Wikilink Eastern Front (World War II)
    •  Done

Network

[edit]
  • If possible, add a few sentences about the service: service frequency, stops (are they large stations, or just like bus stops?), and that the three services overlap for parts of their lengths. Also mention the total route length and number of stops, which are in the infobox but not currently in the prose.

Rolling stock

[edit]
  • This section needs a paragraph of prose, not just the table. Some of that can be copied from the lede.
  • The history section says The depot is being expanded to store 16 additional trams. However, the 2022-2022 order only appears to be for 12 trams. Why the difference?
    •  Done reworded

Other

[edit]
  • Add translated titles for all Polish sources
    •  Done
  • Alt text should describe what's in the image for readers with visual impairments; it should not simply repeat the caption. See MOS:ALT.
    •  Done

Discussion

[edit]
@Pi.1415926535: I found File:Brama pokrzyzacka w Olsztynie.jpg, an image of the old system from 1947, but I'm not sure where to place it because of WP:SANDWICHing with the infobox.
@Pi.1415926535: forgot to sign, pinging – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudhhr Sandwiching between a thumbnail and infobox really isn't an issue any more - modern desktop browsers do a better job preventing sandwiching, the vast majority of desktop screens are much wider than they were when the guideline was introduced, and smartphone browsers display images above the text. I would recommend putting the image in, but won't hold you to it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I've added it to the right, under the infobox. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 22:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I've improved the lede and infobox. Regarding the history section, I could not find more detailed information about the system's construction. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudhhr It looks like the plwiki article has a fair bit of detail about the construction, including some citations. This article doesn't need that level of detail to pass GA, but I'd recommend using that as a base to expand this section to a few paragraphs. (I'm not sure whether you speak Polish, but Google Translate seems to do well enough if not.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I am unable to verify some of the information on the plwiki article because of inaccessible citations. I have asked for the sources on WP:RX. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 02:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I've expanded both Trams in Olsztyn#Current system and Trams in Olsztyn#Former system with information from the sources provided at RX. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 18:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I've added a few more comments. Make sure to use {{done}} or similar to mark when you've completed a suggestion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I have completed all of your current suggestions. Do you have any more suggestions to further improve the article? – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 20:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing at this time, looks good for GA pass. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk09:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two trams in front of the Town Hall
Two trams in front of the Town Hall

Improved to Good Article status by Dudhhr (talk). Self-nominated at 00:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Dudhhr: Good article. AGF on polish sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Dudhhr and Onegreatjoke: I really like the idea behind this DYK, but the hook is not quite right, especially with the picture. The way it is worded right now, it implies that the trams appearing in the picture re-entered service after 50 years, but the article makes it clear that is not the case. I'm not a tram expert, but the trams themselves also look newer than 50 years old. There may be several ways to fix this while still keeping the option open to use the picture (e.g., "tram services in Olsztyn (pictured)...restarted"). Could you please propose some alternative wordings? (After further consideration, I think the wording needs to be adjusted, regardless of whether or not the image is used.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudhhr and Onegreatjoke: Better. But how about slightly shorter? If you give all the information in the hook, no one clicks through to find out more. So, for example:
  • ALT1a: ... that tram service in Olsztyn (pictured) restarted after no trams had operated in the city for more than fifty years?
Note: Now I can't approve my own ALT hook, etc., either, so would appreciate it if @Onegreatjoke: or another reviewer could weigh in. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please review/approve just the ALT hooks? Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: you can approve your own hook if it's just a rewording or shortening of someone else's hook; unless it introduces a new fact that requires verification, you're totally fine to put your stamp on ALT1a. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 07:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just approve this again once more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]