User:Sustainable101/Sustainable public bus transport in Barcelona/ChocolateCalienteConCrema Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

lead:

- typo in first paragraph: "the the" in last sentence

- I would recommend writing "over 5.7 million" instead to make the numbers more uniform throughout the article. This makes the text cleaner and easier to read.

- I would recommend switching the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph gives great factual information that is applicable and can be tied into why public bus transport is so important and essential in Barcelona; however, this paragraph doesn't give the reader any inclination of the article topic since public transport isn't mentioned.

- an introductory sentence should also be incorporated to clearly indicate the article topic to the reader

- citations need to be added in this section if applicable

- the lead is very concise!

Timeline:

- last sentence in second paragraph is a bit wordy. I understand what is trying to be said, and it is a great point, but I'd recommend rewriting it to be more concise and direct.

- the last sentence of this section should be two sentences. - maximize*

- I like the timeline structure. It gives a great overview of the history and highlights the improvements and steps towards sustainability that TMC has taken.

- the content is written in a neutral tone well.

- make sure to add citations!

Shaping:

- The first statement, you should find a statistic about public perception changes to back up your statement

- Great evidence to back up the first statement! Very clear and concise with strong examples.

- Make sure all citations are at the end of the sentence

- The last paragraph of this section reads like a conclusion paragraph by restating what is previously written. I'm not sure that this is needed. ￼

- This section is very well written. The evidence is strong, the tone is balanced, and the information is unbiased.

- This section seems to also embody the environmental impacts, so for the final section it may be good to focus solely on the economic considerations. ￼

Overall, I think the content is very strong and aligns with the article topic well. I like the order for the article, starting with a timeline and then moving into more detailed information.