A fact from Trams in Olsztyn appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that tram service in Olsztyn(pictured) restarted after no trams had operated in the city for more than fifty years?
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
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 planned → 1 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.
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, scheduled → September 2012 and was scheduled
Done
Is there an article about the Kortowo university to link to?
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.
Done with overlap, length, and number of stops. No information found for service frequency. With regard to stops (are they large stations, or just like bus stops?), images such as File:Solaris_Urbino_and_Solaris_Tramino,_MPK_Olsztyn_(23558212800).jpg show them to be bus stops, but it would likely be considered OR to state that, not to mention the verifiability concerns. – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 03:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there are timetables available on the operator website. Something like "each line typically operates on headways of 7.5 to 10 minutes on weekdays, and 10 to 15 minutes on weekends" would be fine.
This section needs a paragraph of prose, not just the table. Some of that can be copied from the lede.
Done@Pi.1415926535: All current suggestions are done. Do you have any more suggestions for me? – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 15:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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?
@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 improved the lede and infobox. Regarding the history section, I could not find more detailed information about the system's construction. – dudhhrtalkcontribs (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. – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 02:07, 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? – dudhhrtalkcontribs (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]
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 (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
@Cielquiparle:ALT1: ... that tram service in Olsztyn(pictured) restarted on a new system in December 2015 after no trams had operated in the city for more than fifty years? – dudhhrtalkcontribs (he/they) 14:17, 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 (talk • contribs) (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]
Done
Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dudhhr: Good article. AGF on polish sources. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Could someone please review/approve just the ALT hooks? Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll just approve this again once more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
