Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics/archive1

Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics

Featured article candidates/Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics/archive1

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the transportation during the Paris 2024 Olympics and Paralympics. Getting the athletes, officials, media, support staff and crowds to the venues was a vital part of the logistics of the event. Much of the credit for this article goes to the editors of the French language Wikipedia article, which I translated. (It gets twice the page views of our English version.) I think this article should be read by anyone involved with Los Angeles 2028 or Brisbane 2032. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

More of a drive-by than anything else, but my first impression is that first sentence: Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics played a critical part in getting spectators and athletes to competition venues is trying to convince the reader that this subject is notable. It seems more like editorializing than summarizing the article content.
Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games the immediate question in my mind is "How much of this was ephemeral and how much was durable improvements which would continue to be useful after the games?" For example, you say the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%; that's ephemeral. After the games were over, presumably the schedules returned to normal. Elsewhere you say the transport fleet would include hybrid vehicles and hydrogen-powered buses which is more of a durable improvement since presumably those vehicles will continue to be used for many years. This distinction is evident is how Rail network is divided into Extension of the network (durable) and Increased services (ephemeral) but it would be good to say right up front when you introduce the €500 million cost how that broke down into those two broad categories.
All infrastructure improvements were durable. Temporary infrastructure is being reused or repurposed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to quantify what's wouldn't have happened without the Olympics/Paralympics, and what would have happened anyway, albeit more slowly. For example, the 2005 Paris bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics proposed extending the Paris Metro to Front Populaire station – this station did open, albeit in December 2012.

Maybe we need to study the candidature file to work out exactly what was promised to be delivered in time for the Games – I suspect Line 14 to Orly Airport, for example. Turini2 (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is under Preparations it says:
Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games. To meet the increased numbers of passengers on the various lines compared to a normal summer, the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%.
That sounds like the increase in frequency and hours (not durable improvements) was where the €500 million was spent. Perhaps what you meant was something like:
Over €500 million was invested in long-term transport improvements for the Games. In addition, to meet the increased numbers of passengers on the various lines compared to a normal summer, the frequency and hours of service for public transport was increased by an average of 15%.
RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the text about a bit to avoid giving that implication. (During Sydney 2000, the transportation network ran at full capacity for the first time since 1901.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly a WP:FACR, but I suggest renaming the page to the more concise title Transportation during the 2024 Paris games. See Talk:Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics#Requested move 3 February 2025.

Comments from Noleander

First paragraph of the Lead doesnt seem quite the right way to start off: Transportation during the 2024 Summer Olympics and Paralympics played a critical part in getting spectators and athletes to competition venues. Over €500 million was invested in transport improvements for the Games. That has a bit of a marketing/puffery sound to it. I would expect the 1st paragraph to be more factual, something that defines what the xportation network WAS. Such as: The Transportation was responsible for .... Organized by the Paris Dept of ... The xportation included 32 metro lines, 400 bus lines,.... Over 30 km of new lines were opened in the 4 years preceding.." During the Olymp and ParaOlym, the network carried over 7 million passenger-rides..."

To host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, organisers must provide transport for ... "must" is a mandate? ... does the contract with the IOC have contractual requirements? Or is "must" simply stating the tasks it had to perform (no mandate)? If not a mandate, maybe: To host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the transport system must ...
Yes, that is correct: the contract with the IOC has contractual requirements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike previous years, no service interruptions related to engineering or improvement works were scheduled in the summer of 2024. Word "previous" could perhaps be better, that leads me to think "previous olympics". Maybe "Unlike most summers ..."? Or "Most summers, the Paris metro has improvement work, but none was undertaken in 2024..." or "Normally, some improvement works are performed during summer months, but in 2024 ..." or similar
The previous Olympics was in 1924. Re-worded to make it clearer that we are talking about Paris in 2024. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were expectations that 350,000 fans with disabilities would be visiting Paris ... "expectations" is ambiguous, could mean "hopes". Consider "Organizers anticipated 350,000 fans ..." or "Organizers planned for 350,000 fans ... "?
Re-worded slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However the vast majority of Metro stations were not accessible to all.... It may help readers to add a few words explaining why: most stations were built many decades ago, some more than a century ago, so only a small portion have elevators.
Added a bit about this. It is not just about age. (We published a photo essay of the stairs we climbed to get to a venue, which generated a huge number of likes from the athletes.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

le-de-France Mobilités stated that it did not want to make subscribers in the Paris region pay the additional costs of increased service offered during the Games, with Île-de-France Mobilités announcing that visitors to Paris would pay higher fares for the increased service. I do not understand this. The first half of the sentence is explaining why olympic visitors will not get free xport tickets. I get that (they don't want the Paris commuters to subsidize free travel for tourists). The 2nd half of the sentence is a non sequitur: Will only visitors pay a higher fare (than normal fare)? Will permanent Paris residents be paying less than visitors? Are the prices/fares going up for everyone?
Yes, that is correct. The French version has the actual prices: Du 20 juillet au 8 septembre, un titre de transport temporaire nommé « passe Paris 2024 », autorisant un nombre illimité de trajets en Île-de-France, est vendu au tarif de 16 € pour une journée ou 70 € par semaine (avec des tarifs intermédiaires en fonction du nombre de journées : 30, 42, 52, 60 et 66 €). Sur cette même période, le tarif de certains billets sera relevé : 4 € pour le ticket t+, 32 € pour le forfait de 10 trajets par la carte Navigo Easy et 16 € pour un ticket origine-destination vers les aéroports d'Orly ou de Roissy. Les autres forfaits touristiques seront suspendus. Les titres de transports Navigo et Liberté + restent inchangés pour les abonnés franciliens. Do you think it is worth adding this to the article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To help readers grasp the facts, consider breaking that (green text) sentence into two or three shorter, delcarative sentences: (a) Govmt decided to NOT give free passes to Olympic visitors, thus Parisian commuters would not subsidize the visitors. (b) Ticket prices were increased for everyone; (c) There was a new type of ticket introduced especially for the Olympics. Point (c) is already stated in that paragraph elsewhere (not in green text), and I'm not suggesting duplicating point (c) ... just including it here for an example of the flow/sequence of facts presented to the reader. Noleander (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as suggested. The Olympic family, athletes, officials and media still got free passes of course. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Several major public transport projects opened prior to the Games, with extensions of existing Paris Metro and RER lines as well... If appropriate, consider adding a few words about which of those extensions were deliberately timed/funded to support the 2024 olympics (vs extensions that were planend decades in advance). Was a special "push" made to move some of the start dates forward to support the olympics?
Yes. The extension of line 4, for example, had been on the plans for 45 years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A project that called for a major modification of Gare du Nord station by ... that entire paragraph is talking about the Gare du Nord, correct? The following two paragaraphs, however, both talk about 2 or more stations. Most readers will not realize that all five sentences of that 1st paragraph are talking about a single station. Maybe add words in the middle of the 1st paragraph to remind the reader they are still in the GdN ... such as "Additional improvements to the Gare du Nord included..." or something like that.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stations too close to the venues for festivities or competitions were closed, most notably the ... Interesting. I want to know why they were closed... was it security? Or foot traffic conflicts? I suppose it was a foot-traffic issue? People would need to walk thru the sports venue to go in/out of the station? But most stations have multiple access points ... were they all interfering with the venue? No big deal, but if you could add a few words to tell the reader why they closed, that may help.
Yes, the stations were completely closed. For security reasons. Most notably Concorde, which was within the security perimeter of the Paralympic opening ceremony. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The branch of the Seine which passes through the Olympic Village was closed ... Would be helpful to add a few words saying about where on the Seine the closure was "... in northern part of Paris" .. "in the Seine-Saint-Denis department..." or "... to the east of the L'Île-Saint-Denis.." or similar.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 July 2024, the day of the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, a series of arson attacks damaged lines ... That arson was fairly minor in the big scheme of things, no? I know it got a lot of headlines ("if it bleeds, it leads") ... but there were no deaths and no injuries. Does it deserve to occupy one of the four Lead paragraphs? Ten years in the future, will readers think those arson attacks were important (vs the entirety of the 2024 Olympics)? In my opinion, should delete that paragraph from the lead and replace it with other, more important topics.
Another editor (Arconning) asked for it to be added during the GA review. Where two editors disagree, I wait for some consensus to form. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commencing in the summer of 2022, transport security coordination was carried out from the Operational Security Command Center (CCOS), which brought together all stakeholders in shared premises located at the Paris Police Prefecture headquarters. The CCOS was connected to 101,000 video ... When you say "starting in 2022" was that a permanent change? Or was this CCOS just a 3-year project, and it was disbanded after the olympics were over?
It was disbanded when the games ended. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: quality of the prose is excellent: Professional & encyclopedic.

Images: Great selection!!! really give a feeling for the topics. Congrats finding so many available pics, some articles are not so lucky.
Reviewer below suggests adding "alt" text to the images. In the spirit of this article, which includes the Paralympics, I think adding text for visually impaired readers is a great idea.

Sources: I have not done any spot checks, but nearly every sentence has a cite, and sources look aesthetically okay. Since this is a current event (rather than a historical event) it is not surprising that there is not a "Bibliography" or "Sources" section.
It would have if I had created it, but I followed the style already in place. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, the article is in excellent shape. The Lead section is the one thing that strikes me as needing work ... but that should be easy to remedy. I'm happy to support if the above issues are addressed/resolved (note that some of the items above are optional suggestions). Noleander (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes look good, and have resolved many of the comments above. My only remaining concern is the Lead section, especially: (1) first Paragraph should be much broader/overview: define what the article is about, to a reader who knows nothing. (2) Devoting 1/4 of the paragraphs to relatively minor arson incidents. Nominator says another reviewer wanted the arson put into the lead; and says that they are awaiting consensus to form. As a compromise: maybe have a single sentence about the arson, within a paragraph?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to support after Lead section is finalized. Noleander (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
File:Paris_2024_pink_signage_at_Gare_du_Nord_station_(cropped).jpg: what's the copyright status of the signage? Ditto the Navigo card
Sigh. The IOC requires special rules to protect its IP that go beyond the usual national rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are those rules? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draconian. The IOC claims trademark and copyright that overrides all national laws. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which would mean this cannot be on Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Logo Copyright/Trademark: Trademarked images on Wikipedia that do not rise to the level of copyright (i.e., "public domain" trademarks), are considered "free" content for licensing purposes. They do not need a fair-use rationale on their image description page in order to be used. In addition, Wikipedia's self-imposed restrictions on fair-use images do not apply to public-domain images; this means that they can be used in non-article namespace pages – e.g. userpages, templates (including userboxes), and the like – and as icons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The red navigo card seems original enough to rise to the level of copyright, though the blue not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have removed the red navigo card image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Saint-Denis_Pleyel_Métro_-_Station_Grand_jour.jpg: what's the copyright status of the station?
The station architecture is copyright, but you can still take a photo. See Commons:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the exception there is for non-commercial use, which is non-free for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about fair use. French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject", as per the examples on the Commons page. The French image uploader has tried to make this the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing that case being made? The subject of the image appears to be the station. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A photo like this would still not be okay, copyright wise? File:Saint-Denis - Pleyel Métro 14 2024 03.jpg Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]