Talk:Waterlooplein metro station/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Will get to this by the end of the day (twenty-four hour period speaking) 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 19:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Styyx: Thanks for the fun read! I have left a few comments below. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns so that I may know when to respond (: All the best, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Nice work! I am pleased with these changes and now happy to pass this article for GA status. Congratulations! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go (although the original sources are in Dutch so copyvio detection is basically impossible).

Files

All images are of high quality, appropriate, and under libre licenses. Their licenses:

• File:Waterlooplein platform, 2022.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0, uploaded to Commons by nominator;
• File:Wethouder Lammers op het perron, Bestanddeelnr 928-1135.jpg: valid public domain rationale, from Dutch National Archives;
• File:Metrotraject wordt 10 oktober 1980 geopend tussen Weesperplein en Centraal Stati, Bestanddeelnr 931-0560.jpg: valid public domain rationale, from Dutch National Archives;
• File:Waterlooplein entrance, 2022.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0, uploaded to Commons by nominator;
• File:Waterloo Willem Sandberg Metrostation Waterlooplein Amsterdam (cropped).jpg: crop from CC-BY-SA 4.0 image on Commons;
• File:Voetstappen Dirk Müller Waterlooplein Metrostation Amsterdam.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Prose

• "Four entrances lead up to the square with the same name" – change to "Four entrances lead up to the square of the same name"

Done.

• "Waterlooplein station ends the straight section of line between Weesperplein and Wibautstraat" – is this sentence missing a word?

Reworded. The point was that the line goes basically straight from Holendrecht all the way until Weesperplein and ends before Waterlooplein.

Ah—I see! Nice work rewording.

• "Lots of oak revetments" – change to "Several oak revetments"

Done.

• "The renovation of Waterlooplein started in September" – change to "The renovation of Waterlooplein commenced in September." (These GAs with their formal wording smh my head)

Done.

• "The aim was to bring back the brutalist architecture used in the original station." – "The aim" sounds rather informal to me but I cannot think of a better alternative. Based on the sources, is it perhaps possible to rephrase to something around the likes of "[Name of renovating authority] wanted to revert back to the brutalist architecture used in the original station."?

Done; added "The architect of the renovation..."

Great!

• In Artwork, do the sources say whether Willem Sandberg or Dirk Müller were commissioned for their artworks? I would note this in the article. Similarly;

Added. Artists were commissioned for all except two stations, which Waterlooplein isn't one of.

• Artwork begins with explaining Waterloo. It would be more informative for readers to add a sentence that first notes that Sandberg painted the artwork and where it is located.

Uhh, I don't understand this one. The first sentence is already "Waterloo by Willem Sandberg consists of blue and red letters on the platform walls..."

My main concern was that the section began with sole focus on only one of the artworks, but the sentence you added per my previous point above seems to have fixed that :)

• "as they were damaged" – does the source say why they were damaged or was it just due to gradual decay overtime? If the latter I would note this in the article.

They were damaged damaged; "Wel zijn sommige werken door renovatiewerkzaamheden of veiligheidsmaatregelen in de stations beschadigd".

Noted.

• Recommend adding template:Use X English.

I honestly wouldn't know which. :d

No problem! Not really a requirement.

Refs

All citations are RS or used appropriately, and formatted correctly. No concerns; decided to spot check the four sources in Bibliography and refs 7, 16 and 22—they all support the article's content.

Others

Navs, infobox, categories and templates all good.

• LunaEatsTuna, back to you. :) ~Styyx^Talk? 17:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Great work! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 00:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.