Talk:Urban traffic modeling and analysis

Comments
Hello, I think that you made a really good job, the article it’s clear and easy to read. In my opinion they are just a few points to be improved:

Introduction: In the last paragraph:
 * Acording to: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:R%C3%A9sum%C3%A9_introductif the introduction section must be placed just before the summary.
 * I guess you meant “Researchers” instead of “Researches”.
 * I think that if you change the ‘.” in: “... analysis. By collecting ...” for a “,” the idea of this paragraph will be more clear.

DataSource:
 * I think the correct phrase is: “The sources of which data can be collected to create a model are a key choice to the model and algorithms”.

Psycho-spacing models: “even when the headway distances is very large or small”
 * The correct phrase might be: “even when the headway distances are very large or small” or “even when the headway distance is very large or small”

Specifications of model traffic characteristics:
 * The sense of this phrase it’s not really clear: “Multiple process algorithms exists using different proven methodologies.” Do you mean: “The existing multiple process algorithms use different proven methodologies”?
 * I guess you meant “often” instead of “ofter”.

Specifications of model traffic characteristics:
 * I think the correct phrase is: “Algorithms may differ depending on the data of their model is based on or the way they structure and link these data.”

References: Gissel.fernandez (talk)
 * The referenced website in Reference 5 doesn’t contain a URL to the full article in pdf or in any format.

SallaDiagne (talk)

Very good article ! Well written with a style that fits Wikipedia's published articles. The reading is easy because the article successfully followed the general-to-specific writing and references are well injected into the parts that need them. However, I think there are some points that could be corrected or rewritten in order to improve its quality :

Introduction
 * This section should be placed before the table of contents, and therefore serve as an introductory summary (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section).
 * I think the two first sentences of the second paragraph ("The final objective ... pollution and fuel consumption") should belong to the first one, because they refer to the same idea (which is the definition and the goal of traffic urban modeling). The second paragraph rather deals with the contributions of the advanced traffic intelligent management technologies.
 * In the last paragraph, did you mean "Researchers" instead of "Researches" ?
 * I think the two sentences composing this paragraph should be merged into one, because they point to the same idea and the second sentence doesn't have a noun and a verb...

Traffic Flow Models
 * I think there is a lack of homogeneity in the beginning of the definition of the subparts. Some definitions start with a present participle ("Depending on ..."), some with a noun ("Vehicles and drivers behavior ...") and others with a past participle ("Based on the process ...")