Talk:Grič Tunnel (Zagreb)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: KJP1 (talk · contribs) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Delighted to pick this up. My first GA Review, but I have enlisted the aid of a GA mentor so hopefully won't go too far off track. Shall begin tomorrow. One initial thought; although not necessary for GA, infoboxes can be very helpful for buildings/structures articles. There is an Infobox:tunnel which may be useful. KJP1 (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
 * 2) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
 * 1) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

Articles passes quick-fail assessment. Main review to follow.

Main review
1. It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * Generally, it is very well written and I will Pass on this criterion, subject to review of the suggestions below.
 * Lede
 * "which lent its name to the tunnel." This always sounds to me like the name could be taken back. "which gave its name to the tunnel" or "which gave the tunnel its name" could be preferred.
 * Done.
 * "which is connected by two tubes" - "tubes" reads oddly here, and elsewhere. It doesn't fit the wiki definition of tube (structure), nor are they railway tunnels like The Tube. Would "passage" or "passageways" be clearer?
 * Changed to passageways. I'm glad you brought this up, I wasn't very happy with the use of "tube" myself, but I'm not a native English speaker and couldn't think of a better word.
 * "a bomb shelter and a promenade" - promenade is defined as a "long, open, level area". Certainly, to me, the word conveys something more like the Promenade des Anglais than this, rather gloomy, tunnel - no disrespect intended! Would something like "pedestrian walkway" work better?
 * Well, the word used in the source ("šetalište") basically translates to "promenade". I agree it's an unlucky choice of words, I think it was probably used as a way to affirm that tunnel was a bit of a vanity project from the get go.
 * "opened to public," - "to the public".
 * Done.
 * Description
 * "to public access" - I think "for public access" would be clearer.
 * Done.
 * "Parts of original signage" - missing definite article, "Parts of the original signage".
 * Done.
 * Construction
 * "was allocated to the planning and construction" - suggest "was allocated for the planning..".
 * Done.
 * "The project was assigned to engineers Abramović, Senjaković and Vajda." Where these three individual engineers or was it a company? If the latter, which sounds likely, then something like, "to the engineering firm of Abramović ..".
 * The source is ambiguous about this, and Google is of no help here either unfortunately. Judging by the way it was written, it could be anything from a long-term partnership to a temporary joint venture between individuals. I'd rule out a company since it would've almost certainly been written differently.
 * "the cost ballooned" - "the costs rose significantly"?
 * Changed to "rose to 490 million..."
 * "improve its insulation against water" - do you insulate against water? "secure the structure against water damage", perhaps?
 * We do in Croatian :) I assumed it translated to English as well.
 * "the construction of an another corridor" - an unnecessary "an" has slipped in.
 * Fixed by another editor. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 02:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "believed that its construction was fueled by the Cold War effort and performed in utter secrecy as some documents concerning the tunnel have not been released" - A few things here. "was fuelled by the Cold War effort".  If we're using British spelling, we need another "l" in "fuelled".  Also, I'm not sure quite what it means.  "construction was driven by Cold War tensions", perhaps? "performed in utter secrecy" - this sounds odd, and a bit melodramatic.  "carried out in secrect", perhaps? "as some documents concerning the tunnel have not been released" - the "as" implies a connection between the 1950s activity and the long delayed release of documents as of 2016, which I don't think there was.  Replace "as" with "with" to give "believed that its construction was driven by Cold War tensions and carried out in secret with some documents concerning the tunnel not having been released by the Croatian Ministry of Defence as of July 2016."
 * I think the point he's trying to make is that if no work had been done in the tunnel during the Communist era, none of the documents about it would still be secret today. However, I agree that you wording sounds better.
 * Fall into obscurity
 * "In the later years, the tunnel fell into disuse" - the later years of what? "From the mid-20th century..."?
 * Done
 * "The opacity of the Yugoslav government led to urban legends" - "opacity" reads a little oddly; "lack of openness/transparency" may be better. And I assume it wasn't the general closed nature of a totalitarian government that led to the rise of the legends? Therefore, they could be more directly linked, e.g. "The Yugoslav Government's lack of transparency regarding the tunnel led to the rise of a number of urban legends, including..."
 * I've changed it, but I think it's in a large part due to the general lack of transparency. The tunnel was in use, and then it got closed, not to be mentioned again in the media. In a normal society probably no one would think twice about it, but the Cold War paranoia ran very high around here. This kind of conspiracy theory is nothing uncommon, probably every neighbourhood in Zagreb has a few stories to tell.
 * "celebrating the Earth Day" - I don't think the definite article is necessary here.
 * Fixed.
 * Renovation
 * "In mid-2000s" - this could do with a definite article, "the mid-2000s" but might "In the early 21st century" be better?
 * Changed to century. I was thinking of posterity (right now "early 21st century" has a far more narrow meaning than it'll have in 100 years), but this is probably unambiguous enough.
 * Cultural content
 * "tactile sensations" - I'm not sure I know what these would be, in this context. Is the source any more clear?
 * Wish I knew. Should I put it in quotes? Actually, it seems it's only mentioned in an old government press release. I'm removing it until a reliable source mentions it again.
 * b (MoS):
 * Again, I think the layout conforms to MOS and is fine.
 * Just a few suggestions, but none are requirements:
 * The lede is short, although suitable for the article and it does the job of covering all of the article's main points. But it could be expanded.
 * You might consider the use of Infobox:tunnel but it's not essential.
 * The reference to the tv show Top DJ Mag in the Fall into obscurity section is red-linked. If it is unlikely the show will ever have an article, you could remove the red-link.
 * I think I'm gonna leave it be. I couldn't find much about it online, but seeing as it ran for 10 years in the 90s and still has a lot of mentions online, there are probably enough sources on- and offline for it to meet WP:GNG.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * I think these are generally fine. My only suggestions are for the Construction section.  Here, you have only three, end-of-paragraph, citations, all to the same link.  A few more would be an improvement, particularly for the direct quotations from the 1944 Construction Committee report. I think all direct quotes need citing. Similarly, the direct reference to the October 1949 report could do with a citation.
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * I can't actually read any of the sources as they are in Croatian, but they all work and all look reliable; journals, newspapers etc. rather than blogs, for example. As an aside, a Google search shows up plenty of English language sources. Would use of a few of these increase accessibility? See Citing non-English sources. Again, not a requirement.
 * I've added one. I've found more English-language sources, but I'm not sure if they would qualify as reliable. Do you think I should add these?   Ironically, I've found a bunch of scientific papers on the wrong Grič Tunnel.
 * Re. accuracy, can you just check your per-head calculation for the costs of construction - if I divide 490,000,000 kuna by 5,000, I get a per capita cost of 98,000, not the 60K you get. But Maths was never my strong point!
 * Well caught! It seems that that was the estimate at the time of the February 1944 criticism, which was issued at some point during the construction.
 * Measurements - any chance of getting a height measurement in, along with the length?
 * c (OR):
 * No original research.
 * d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):
 * No evidence of either.

3. It is broad in its scope.
 * a (major aspects):
 * The article appears to cover all significant aspects of the tunnel's history, design and construction. One concern as follows:
 * There is nothing on the period 1950-1993. This forty year period is about half the tunnel's existence.  I appreciate that if it had become a haunt of the homeless and drug addicts, there may not be much, but something for this forty-year period would be useful.
 * Matešić, the historian on whose article in Nacional I've based most of the article wrote that he couldn't find any mention of the tunnel anywhere during that period. My online search didn't come up with anything either, so I'm trusting him.
 * b (focused):
 * The article is detailed, although not unnecessarily so.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * The article is properly neutral in tone and content.

5. It is stable:
 * The article is relatively new (December 2016) but there has been no edit-warring and it is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Images are tagged and usable.
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are accompanied by appropriate captions. An image of the interior would enhance the article but is not essential. My mentor does note that a number of good examples are available on Flickr with the necessary licenses.
 * Please note that the External Link to Commons takes you to an empty category. It should probably be removed.
 * I had made a typo while adding that link, I've fixed it. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

7. Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thanks so much for the review, KJP1 :) I've adressed some of your suggestions, but unfortunately I don't have any more time today, so I'll come back tomorrow for the others. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 02:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded close to 30 free use images from flickr to the Commons category. I think the article would benefit from a photo of the tunnel's interior, so if you agree, hopefully there's at least one there that you find worthy of including. Hope that helps a little. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think we're done. A few suggestions remain, detailed below, but they are suggestions and don't impede the article's classification as GA. Congratulations to Daß  &thinsp; Wölf and thanks to Juliancolton  for his guidance and advice. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * A photo of the interior would enhance the article;
 * So, in my view, would the use of infobox:tunnel;
 * A height measurement would be useful.


 * Thanks for the review and the suggestions :) I'm very busy at the moment but I'll try to find time over the next few days to work on those suggestions as well. Daß &thinsp; Wölf</b> 23:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)