Template:Did you know nominations/Trams in Olsztyn

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)

Trams in Olsztyn

(

)

Two trams in front of the Town Hall

... that trams in Olsztyn (pictured) re-entered service in December 2015 after not operating for more than fifty years? Source: https://www.transport-publiczny.pl/wiadomosci/olsztynski-tramwaj-od-tanca-z-hiszpanami-po-happy-end-50983.html (in Polish)
- Reviewed: exempt

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

Reviewing... Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

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

@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)

@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? – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@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)

Could someone please review/approve just the ALT hooks? Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@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)

I'll just approve this again once more. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)