Talk:R2 (Rodalies de Catalunya)/GA1

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 23:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I have my own GA nomininations (CMLL World Tag Team Championship, CMLL World Welterweight Championship, CMLL World Trios Championship and CMLL World Middleweight Championship) and need input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated - especially FL and FA input,

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * No issues ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues reported ✅


 * External links
 * No issues reported ✅

Well Written

 * "Centre, so that" does not need the comma
 * "all stations, so that" does not need the comma
 * "specially" should be "especially"
 * "respectively—, 447" not sure what the "—" is for?
 * "plans to stablish" should be "plans to establish"
 * "investments, since" does not need the comma
 * The average ridership is only in the lead, should be mentioned in the body too.
 * All citations should be in the body of the text, if they cite facts only in the lead these facts should be put in the body too.
 * Like a lot of articles this one jumps straight past the information in the lead, basically treating it as part of the body. It jumps right past telling us what the R2 actually is. Tip - write the body of the article as if the lead is not part of the article. it should be a supplement, not a substitution for the body of the article.
 * I believe "call at" should be "call on"
 * "excepting the section" should be "except the section"
 * "as of 2015, the "temporary" line scheme still remains in operation, and no date has been announced so far." needs a source.

Sources/verifiable

 * Look to be reliable, albeit a bit primary for a lot of the info, but train lines probably don't get a ton of press in the New York Times ;-) ✅

Broad in coverage

 * Past, present, future ✅

Neutral

 * Looks like it.

Stable

 * Looks like it from the article history ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * All images need Alt text please
 * Licenses check out ✅

Tables

 * Infrastructure
 * the term PK should be put in a key or something to spell it out the first time the abbreviation is used.


 * Operations Table 1
 * Not sure why there is a list of services outside of the table? Why not include them in the table?


 * The rest look okay, sorting fine etc.

General
- -  Looks good so far, not really a lot of issues so it is close to a Good Article. Putting this on hold for up to 7 days to allow for updates to be made.  MPJ  -US 00:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few red links, but nothing looks like it could not possibly become an article. Basically if R2 can be created and sourced I would say any of those could be too.
 * (non-reviewer/nominator observation) This article would benefit from using for the red links, e.g: . – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * we are coming up on the end of the 7 day period, about 24 hours or so before I would consider closing this as failed if no activity is seen. Now if you start working on this and need more time I have no problems keeping it open longer to get the improvements worked in. Just let me know.  MPJ  -US 04:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No activity in 7 days. Failing GA.  MPJ  -US 00:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I don't like exposing my daily life on Wikipedia, but I've been very busy these past two weeks with my college exams. Looks like I won't have time to edit Wikipedia before the summer holidays. Thank you anyway for the review. Mllturro (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I renominated the article since I adressed most of the issues stated above. Mllturro (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As part of the renomination process, I created a "History" section to include the information in the lead into the body, reorganising the "Operation" section, which contained information that may be considered to be "History". I also included the lead's ridership figures in the article's body ("Operation" section). Mllturro (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)