Percentage of blocks signalling SegWit support should reach 95% In order to get SegWit implemented otherwise It won't happen. It's being like two months without any significant changes on the chart , I doubt we will ever get there but as said above that won't make transactions faster but LN will.

It can be a long time until something be implemented but it's a good thing too, at least we will have a concrete decision with the agreement of most supporters preventing the bitcoin to split in more different ways, it could be worse for bitcoin as the price could change a lot.
There are much to be discussed yet and maybe more solutions can arise to be discussed too.

firstly segwit guarantee's nothing.
when activated. nothing changes.
users have to wait for yet another implementation release that offers the actual p2wpkh/p2wsh key utility
AT VERY BEST .. IF 100% of users used p2wpkh/p2wsh keys instead of legacy(old) keys, expect maximum of about 4500tx instead of ~2500

but here is the thing
spammers, scammers and bloaters wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys. so dont expect 4500tx a block
even moral people take months/years to upgrade their implementations. so even after it activates dont expect noticable rises anytime soon

and lastly. the mempools is very often full of more than 4500tx unconfirmed at most times. so many transactions are still going to be waiting even in the utopian statistic of 100% dream utility.

segwit is just an empty gesture kicking the stone down the road

There's still a lot of debate on Segwit Implementation. Still no consensus. You can do a search in the forum about why Segwit will not solve the transaction issue currently a lot of us experiencing.

try to use the terms properly.

those wanting dynamic blocks are - "onchain scalers"
those wanting segwit are - "centralist temporal gestures"

after all
the community that want REAL onchain scaling compromised to 2mb for ~5000tx..
while the "centralistic temporal gesturers" want to temporarily give an empty gesture of possible 2.1mb for a possible ~<4500tx. but then later bloat up the same <4500tx count to 4mb without offering more tx.
(confidential payment codes turns a standard tx into something thats 1kb bigger)

EG
"onchain scalers" 2mb=~5000tx (from ~2500tx)

"centralist temporal gestures" 2.1mb=~<4500tx (from ~2500tx)..
then later 4mb for the same ~<4500tx (once they add other features to the tailend of serialised tx data.

emphasising the misunderstanding of 'bigblockers'
2 vs 4. makes "centralistic temporal gesturers" the big blockers. because they want to fill blocks with nonsense features. not lean tx's in their empty gesture of 4mb

again 2 vs 4. which is bigger.

It is hard to say how long it will take, but the pressure for a decision is rising, since Bitcoin might fall apart in the end with no change. The more urgent it will become, the more miners will decide for one or the other. I just hope for two things. First that the decision will not be made in a haste, because it is high time. Secondly i hope that Bitcoin will stay united and do not see two or more big active chains.
If they will be implemented at all or when can nobody tell you, but this is a big step for Bitcoins future and right now this looks not to promising.

Miners.

But nodes must be ready to accept (completly) the segwit block in her local blockchain ...

So miners wait until nodes are full in segwit compatibility, first.

In usual time, this pass with 3 revisions of the Bitcoin Core client or 6 months.

LN will be implemented after SegWit because LN needs SegWit in order to work. So this has nothing to do with "makes it easier". Your 4-5 months are just the outcome if we have 15% new support of mines per month, which seems not to realistic for me. So far we had a steady rise followed by a stagnation. This makes me assume that we will see the stagnation for a while and then a sudden jump or drop. But how long this stagnation will go on is beyond my or anybodys ability.

OK but here you are comparing different things ("standard transactions" with "confidential transactions"). But that all wasn't my point. I think simply that Core has more backing by the community at this moment. I'm not totally against the Bitcoin Unlimited proposal - it looks like a smart way to reach a consensus about future block size increases - but it would need much more testing until it has a chance to be adopted.

The "altcoin -> bitcoin adoption theory" could, in theory, also be true for Bitcoin Unlimited. But Unlimited offers less advantages to altcoins: only a bigger block size, no malleability fixes (malleability fixes are the main Segwit advantage for altcoins because they would benefit enormously from atomic cross-chain trading, and they at the moment don't need bigger blocks).