Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Katowice historic train station

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Katowice historic train station

edit
(
)

Katowice historic train station

5x expanded by Piotrus (talk). Self nominated at 03:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC).

  • I don't read Polish, so assuming this would be sourced, how about: — Maile (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Alt1 ... that ruined Katowice train station (pictured) attained monument status in 1975, but stalled plans for its future have caused media buzz and frustration among the populace?
The Alt1 seems fine (creator/nom comment). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Expansion amount and date verified, image license fine. I like the original hook better than ALT1; they both say the same with the former being more concise. I feel the image is too dark / shows too little contrast in the actual station building. IMO File:Old train station in Katowice - 03.JPG (license also fine) would work better at 100x100. The original hook is properly referenced (foreign language accepted igf). ALT1 grammatically still needs a comma after 'buzz' (the media buzz is not among the populace), and a reference for 'stalled', which seems to me to be much stronger than 'delayed'. As there still is a Katowice train station, the hook should not have a piped link like [[Katowice historic train station|Katowice train station]]. Maybe use [[Katowice historic train station|old railway station of Katovice]]? --Pgallert (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I was going to try to get this moving again, but before calling for a reviewer the article needs a copyedit. One example: "Partially ruined, since 2007 it is now owned by a private developer, with plans to renovate the objects into a multifunctional center" has both tense problems and the word "objects", which is not appropriate for a train station building (I have no idea what it refers to). I wasn't happy with the wording "media buzz" in ALT1, so I've suggested new ALT hook (it's 179 characters excluding "pictured"):
  • ALT2: ... that the ruined Katowice historic train station (pictured) attained monument status in 1975, but delayed plans for its future have resulted in public protests and continuing media attention?
"Continuing" reads well, but may not quite be appropriate, in which case "regular" or, if more accurate, the article's "repeated" should be substituted. —BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
@User:BlueMoonset I c/e-d the sentence. I hope it reads better now. Alt2 is better, thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, glad you like ALT2. I made a further revision to that one sentence, since it still wasn't right, and also added a "timeframe" template to the beginning of the paragraph, since the station wouldn't have been obsolete after the two 20th century renovations/expansions took place, but later. However, it wasn't just the one sentence that needed editing—the full article should get a copyedit. I gave one example, but it's not the only place where the prose needs work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm still around but I can't check for plagiarism. If someone is literate in Polish I'm happy to hand over. Does 'stalled' not somehow imply more than 'delayed'? Then that needs a reference. --Pgallert (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I asked User:Poeticbent for copyediting assistance. I will also ping User:Nihil novi. I don't know anyone else who may be interested in this topic enough to proofread it. If you see any errors, please fix them, the article reads fine to me. (And to be honest, I think the article passes DYK requirements of start-class prose readability in either case). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, if I didn't think the article needed copyediting work before it hits the main page, I wouldn't have asked for it. At the very least, you should have addressed the "timeframe" template and the issues it highlights last time since the article cannot be promoted before it is. Pgallert, both "stalled" and "delayed" have meanings that imply that it's due to interference of some kind; I don't see a significant difference in the two words in this context, but since it bothers you, I've just changed my ALT2 to use "delayed". I'm not sure where we could find anyone who could check for plagiarism, given that the sources are solely in Polish. Google translate can give us an idea of what the online source material says, but is so rough there's no real way to tell how closely the material is paralleled. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, I'm not insisting on the delayed / stalled replacement, just have the impression that something that stalled is likely never to recover. I'm not native English, and it might well be my lack of insight, or regional differences. My other suggestions (pic, ALT1 comma) have received no commentary and are thus probably also somewhat petty, I'm not insisting on them, either. It is just that with articles where I cannot read a single source, I tend to be overly bureaucratic to make sure the source supports the new phrasing. I have no problem to AGF on plagiarism, just thought one of the thousands of Category:User pl-N editors stops by. --Pgallert (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Piotrus, I think the generous use of brackets contributes to the copyedit concerns, particularly as the content in them breaks the chronological story flow (e.g. "at first it was independent..."), or contradicts the preceding phrase (e.g. "with two story avant-corpss"). If they could be converted into normal sentences then the article should read much better already. Some sentences make no sense, e.g. "...even through the location was a function of the accident" --Pgallert (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Echo User:Pgallert, User:BlueMoonset. Fair enough, I do appreciate your help and comments. How does this look after this copyedit? If you want another Polish-speaking editor to take look at this, you can ask at WT:POLAND. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't think the copyedit went far enough; I have given it a stab myself. Piotrus, could you please give the new version a sanity check, and glance over the sources so that I didn't accidentally plagiarize? Title translations for references and further reading would also be nice, but that's no DYK requirement. BlueMoonset, could you please check if the style now meets your expectations? I have vouched for the other requirements above; If you okay the English then this should be good to go. Cheers, --Pgallert (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I have made few minor fixes and I think the new version is ok. Once again, thank you for your assistance. PS. I don't think it's possible to "accidentally plagiarize". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The prose looks fine to me. Great job, you two. Piotrus, technically you can't "accidentally plagiarize", but you can certainly produce something that ends up being close paraphrasing by fixing prose that's very rough. I once cleaned up an article, only to discover that in untwisting some problematic sentences I ended up inadvertently causing it to closely resemble the original source. Fortunately, I did think to check the source after I was done editing, and realized what I'd done, and did a proper paraphrase of the source. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Article reads well now and enough effort has been devoted to ensuring that the content doesn't plagiarize its Polish-language sources. The hook facts (for all of the various proposed hooks) are in the article and are properly footnoted; I need to AGF on the sourcing because I don't know the language, but from what I can see, it looks valid -- but I'd like to see a page number added to footnote 5; I can tell that the "Katowice" section begins on page 67 of the document, but it continues for several pages. I would like to suggest a rewording of the hooks to the following, which doesn't change any facts but I think is clearer idiomatic English:
  • ALT3: ... that delay of the planned restoration of the ruined Katowice historic train station (pictured), which attained monument status in 1975, has led to public protests? --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT3 checks out, and is indeed worded more nicely than the previous hooks (including my own attempt); I've struck the earlier hooks in favor of this one. The rest of the review per Orlady above and my own examination of the sources earlier in Google Translate. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Katowice_historic_train_station&oldid=1020528767"