Talk:R1–RG1 (Rodalies de Catalunya)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 21:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup and GA Cup participant, I have my own GANs (CMLL World Tag Team Championship and CMLL World Welterweight Championship) and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated.

I am about to start my review of this article, normally I provide my input in bits and pieces over a day or two so expect running updates for a while. MPJ-US 21:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 issue after checking through the list Y

Disambiguation links

No issue reported Y

External links

No issue reported Y

Well Written

"southernmost terminus, and Maçanet" should not have a comma
Typo "northernmmost" should be "northernmost"
"lines R2, R3 and R4" needs a comma after R3

So I am seeing a problem I see in a lot of articles. The article jumps past any sort of introduction in the body of the article, relying on the lead to do that. But to me the lead is like a movie trailer, it should preview what is coming - but the movie cannot rely on you having seen the trailer. There should be some details up front on what the heck R1-RG1 is. Perhaps rearrange the history section to be first, using that to describe the subject matter?

Operation

"There are no end-to-end services between Molins de Rei and Portbou stations on the R1–RG1, so that only partial services operate on the line.", I am not sure that "so that" is the right word choice, something along the line of "which means"
"Montgat, Montgat Nord and Cabrera" needs a comma after "Nord"
"specially on the section", I think this should use the word "especially"

Future

I believe the word is "establish" not "stablish"
"multi-million euro investments, since" no need for the comma

Tables

Looks to sort correct, make sense in general.
under "list of trains" the indicator for "limited service" is not used. it no longer applies from what I can read right? Perhaps still use it but rephrase it to "had limited service prior to XXXX" that way the table shows both facts?

Sources/verifiable

Are the following reliable sources according to WP:RS?

www.trenscat.cat
www.laxarxa.com

Most of these sources are primary (the rail company etc. who all have part in the route.) or they're trenscat.cat which I don't know is reliable or not. I know it's a train line so it's not like it'll have great press coverage, I just don't know what the transportation "notability" guideline is. MPJ-US 22:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in coverage

For a rail line it seems to cover all aspects. Y

Netural

Looks like it on first read through, tentative Y I will update if the second read through makes me change my mind.

Stable

Looks like it, had a lot of activity prior to GA nomination as expected, other than removing an abundance of red links recently nothing seems to be going on as such. Y

Illustrated / Images

Licenses check out, all pictures seem appropriate for the subjet Y

@Mllturro: - while my review is not 100% complete it's pretty close and so far I am not findng a lot of issues. MPJ-US 22:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to put this on hold two days ago when I finished my review, no matter it's on hold now. So I am hoping to see some sort of activity in the next 5-7 days or so to keep this review open. MPJ-US 12:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed

@MPJ-DK: – Hi there. I addressed most of the issues stated in your GA review. All spelling and grammar mistakes found in the review no longer exist. The only issue I don't know how to deal with is the rearrangement of the article's body in order to explicitly say what the R1–RG1 is (which is done in the introduction). Thank you for your review. Mllturro (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mllturro: - Looking at the fixes so far they're looking okay, I will check them in detail to be sure they did not introduce anything else. As for the intro, if you move the history section up, stating that the R1 is a rail line, then the history section covers the rest. I think that reordering it would help a lot. MPJ-US 00:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checking this over, I see the following comments that need to be addressed or commented on one way or the other.

List of Trains table

under "list of trains" the indicator for "limited service" is not used. it no longer applies from what I can read right? Perhaps still use it but rephrase it to "had limited service prior to XXXX" that way the table shows both facts?

Sources

Are the following reliable sources according to WP:RS?

www.trenscat.cat
www.laxarxa.com

Most of these sources are primary (the rail company etc. who all have part in the route.) or they're trenscat.cat which I don't know is reliable or not. I know it's a train line so it's not like it'll have great press coverage, I just don't know what the transportation "notability" guideline is.

@Mllturro: - I researched the two source I was not sure of, laxara.com seems to be local news site, which is okay and trenscat.cat seems to be basic train information which is okay too. Moving the history section up to help serve as an introduction to the subject and I think we're there - but only if that does not break the transportation style guide. I am going to see if I can find out if the style guide has a preference. MPJ-US 21:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Trains MoS actually lists the history as the first of the sections it mentions, I should be safe enough to move it up. MPJ-US 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With the move of the section and the research I did on the websites I am now convinced this is a Good Article. I know you are busy so I just put the finishing touches on this article. Congratulations. MPJ-US 21:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MPJ-DK: - Wow! I can't believe what I'm hearing! I'm sorry for not having had time these past weeks you've been reviewing my articles. I promise to work hard on Wikipedia again during my summer holidays. Thank you very much for your review. Greetings! Mllturro (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]