Talk:Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity) was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 27, 2006
Trains Portal
Sel week 7, 2006
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
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity) article.
Article policies

[edit] GA review

An intiative was launched by a group of users involved in the development of the Good Articles project with the goal to ensure that all Good Articles are held to a high standard, and that all current Good Articles conform with the current quality criteria. This review has the aim to establish how well this article complies with them. They will be listed in italics, one by one, and review comments will be put below in normal type.

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
Oh my, where do I start.... First of all, my English is quite far from perfect, but the attempts at English here are really poor - no offence intended, it's just that this somehow got through the GA criteria and this is obviously quite a basic requirement. I've had trouble understanding the article at times (and I am Polish, so I guess I am able to understand a bit more of the peculiar English in this article), not to mention staying focused. As a result, many sections contain statements that are ambigious or apparently have a different meaning than intended. Moreover, some sections are written from a very "Polish" perspective, for example the relationship between a mysterious "Marshalls Office" (not linked, btw) and specific services is not explained. Overall, this article totally fails on all aspects of this criterion.
Oh, and the article even actually manages to contradict itself - in the body it is stated that the management board consists of two people, while the infobox lists three bord members. The article also states the English name of the company as Urban Fast Train, while the PKP site itself describes it as PKP Fast Regional Rail in Tri-City, Ltd., which I believe is a better representation of the name in English anyway.
(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
Structure design is generally OK and logical, but the application is a bit dodgy, with sections wallowing from topic to topic and from overview to minutiae. For example, there is a bit of a mix-up concerning the EMUs - first there is a brief description of the present-day stock, and then suddenly the S-Bahn consists are mentioned, only to return with a better description of their origin in the history section. Such hybrid topical/temporal structure is hybrid to maintain, so I would recommend reconsidering it for the sake of increased clarity, especially once the content is improved.
The lead is much better written than the rest of the article, but it fails to summarize the origins and history of the SKM.
(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
I am not an expert on that, and there are other, more important issues here, so excuse me for not reviewing the article thoroughly for that. I don't know whether it goes here, but the article contains some speculation (e.g. as to whether Mr. Segień would return to the company), and there are quite many statements refering to "present situation", containing words like "recently" or "now", which, even if not trivial, are imprecise - one should simply state when a given piece of information was valid.
(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
The problem is not that much with technical terms, which seem pretty well explained or linked to (I know some railway terminology, so I might not be the best person to judge that), but with the terminology and descriptions referring to Polish realities. The said "Marshalls Office" is a good example, and several other sections are not even comprehensible to me - I still don't know what the issue with the new board members and their relationship to Przewozy Regionalne actually is. It is also not clear what gives about the Gdańsk-Nowy Port - was it an extension that diverted from the otherwise in-line station alignment? Another example - what Rzeczpospolita 100 list is being meant? I am familiar with the Rzeczpospolita 500/1000/2500 list of the largest companies in Poland by turnover (quite unlike most non-Polish readers, I guess), but I have no idea what was the base for that ranking.
On second reading - the concepts of management board and supervisory board are neither explained nor linked to, so a reader unfamiliar with the Polish corporate law (or, in general, the continental company management concept) might not understand that fragment.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:

(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
Discussed below.
(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
The sources listed might be sufficient to serve as references for the entire article, but the article really needs to use inline references extensively, as it refers both to history and current events, both of which can be controversial and are quite prone to generate OR. There is also no source mentioned for the data used in the graph.
(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
Those that are present seem OK to me.
(d) it contains no elements of original research.
It is not apparent at the moment with the article's linguistic deficiencies and lack of inline references, but I guess the way it is written, especially when it suddenly breaks into detail, suggests there might be some OR there. I guess meticulous referencing can relieve that.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :

(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
I have no major concerns here, though some information is just dumped there without proper context.
(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
The article breaks into trivial level of detail when describing the current situation, e.g. regarding the management changes or the discovery of the old S-Bahn train. Some information, such as ticket prices, is quite irrelevant to the reader and can become outdated very quickly.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:

(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
The article claims that the SKM is "one of the best developed" PKP companies, which is not only not referenced, but also not clear as to what it actually means. Moreover, the common ticket problem is referred to as "one of most urgent and difficult", which is also quite POV.
(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
The fragment about building new tracks might suggest that it was a bad decision to build new tracks - if so, then opposing points of view should be presented, as well as pros and cons for all proposed solutions. I would also be a bit concerned about the statement that "is not obvious why this line (Wrzeszcz-Kartuzy) was not electrified" - seems like the author is convinced that it should have been, but does not expand on that.

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.

No edits to the article since August 11th and no discussion in talk page, which indicates that there is rather too little than too much editorial activity.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:

(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
Image:NewticketSKM.jpg claims CC, but there is no direct link to any statement that would support that claim, while it is stated that the image is taken from SKM's official site. Same with Image:Skm001.gif, Image:Skm002.jpg and Image:Pkp-skm-poroz.jpg (release all rights claimed). I am also not sure how can one scan an "informational table as placed on SKM stops". It is also a 100% representation of copyright work, so GFDL as such is not applicable.
(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
That said, the article is quite well-illustrated, even though a few nicer photos and a map (like in other railway system related articles) of the line would be nice.

Overall, the article fails to comply with almost all of the current WIAGA criteria, and I even seriously doubt it whether it ever complied with any version of the WIAGA. There are quite a few solid Good Articles on regional rail/rapid transit systems, which can serve as benchmarks here, and which this article fares poorly against. Overall, the article obviously needs to be delisted.

Trying not to be rude, I must say the language is the major problem here, so I would recommend a major rewrite of the entire article. There are a few users active in the Polish Wikipedian's Notice Board whose command of English is really superb, and who are really good, meticulous editors, so perhaps the editors wanting to upgrade the article to the true GA status could ask for help there. Bravada, talk - 23:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Skm2002.gif

Image:Skm2002.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)