Talk:R2 (Rodalies de Catalunya)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:R2 (Rodalies de Catalunya)/GA1. 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 Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues reported Y

External links

• No issues reported Y

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 ;-) Y

Broad in coverage

• Past, present, future Y

Neutral

• Looks like it.

Stable

• Looks like it from the article history Y

Illustrated / Images

• All images need Alt text please
• Licenses check out Y

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

• 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 {{illm}} for the red links, e.g: Aragó Tunnel. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

- @Mllturro: - 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)

• @Mllturro: 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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on R2 (Rodalies de Catalunya). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018003206/https://sede.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/4A8F0821-A4B6-4EB0-9F1C-BF4100B2BF77/68661/Ayuda_lineas_Estaciones.pdf to https://sede.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/4A8F0821-A4B6-4EB0-9F1C-BF4100B2BF77/68661/Ayuda_lineas_Estaciones.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:R2 (Rodalies de Catalunya)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 08:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I will review. I will work through the article, making notes as I go, and returning to the lead at the end. Can I suggest that you mark issues that have been addressed with comments and maybe the {{Done}} template. I am not in favour of using strikethrough, as it makes the text difficult to read at a later date, and it is an important record of the GA process. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

History

• Since its creation until 2009, the R2 had preserved its original line scheme with no branch lines, using only Maçanet-Massanes and Sant Vicenç de Calders stations as its northern and southern terminus, respectively. Does not read well. Suggest "From its creation until 2009, the R2 had retained its original line scheme with no branch lines, using Maçanet-Massanes and Sant Vicenç de Calders stations as its northern and southern termini."
• ...lines R2 and R10 as the most affected. Suggest "lines R2 and R10 affected the most."
• On 31 January 2009, the R10, which linked Barcelona–El Prat Airport to Barcelona's Estació de França, suspended services. This makes R10 too personal. Suggest "On 31 January 2009, services were suspended on the R10, which linked..." or similar.
• ...and a new line scheme came into service. What is this trying to say?
• The R10 was initially scheduled to resume services two years later. Again too personal. Suggest "Services on the R10 were initially scheduled to resume two years later." or similar.

Infrastructure

• ...which is entirely double-track, except for the single-track section... "Entirely" cannot be used if there is an "except". Suggest "...which is mainly double track, ..."

Operation

• On the other hand, all services running north... "On the other hand" implies an alternative opinion, and so is not appropriate here. Suggest leaving it out. So, "All services running north..."
• with Sant Celoni or Maçanet-Massanes stations serving as their northern terminus, in order from south to north, calling at all stations. "Terminus" needs to be plural, since it refers to two stations, and the "calling at all stations" clause does not link to anything. Suggest "with Sant Celoni or Maçanet-Massanes stations serving as their northern termini, in order from south to north. These trains call at all stations."
• Some of the services terminating at the airport also use Granollers Centre as their northern terminus. "Terminating" is wrong in this context. Suggest "Some of the services originating at the airport use Granollers Centre as their northern terminus."
• The rest of the services on the R2 run between Castelldefels and Granollers Centre, calling at all stations, so that they do not terminate neither at the airport nor at Estació de França. Sentence is poorly constructed. Suggest "The rest of the services on the R2 run between Castelldefels and Granollers Centre, calling at all stations, and do not terminate at the airport or at Estació de França."
• The first trains run about 5:00 in the morning, with the latest arriving at about 1:00 at night. Time format is incorrect (see WP:MOS). Suggest "The first trains run from about 5:00 am in the morning, with the latest arriving at about 1:00 am at night."
• ...which make up almost the entirety of the services... Poor grammar. Suggest "...which make up most of the services..."
• ...either in the early morning or at late night... Suggest "...either in the early morning or late at night..."
• The line's activity gathers on its southern section, between Vilanova i la Geltrú and Barcelona I cannot understand what this means, and I have read and re-read the rest of that paragraph, to try to work out how it can be improved. "Offered" is not a good word choice, and nor is "as the line moves away from Barcelona". For the text starting where an approximate peak-time service frequency of 10 minutes is offered..., I suggest "where trains run approximately every 10 minutes at peak times. All services converge on the section between El Prat de Llobregat and Barcelona Passeig de Gràcia stations, where the peak-time service frequency increases to 8 minutes. The overall service frequency reduces to the north of Barcelona, especially on the section north of Sant Celon..." or similar.
• the 463, 464 and 465 Series, ..., 447 Series, 450 Series and 451 Series electrical multiple units (EMU). This would read better if all series were introduced in the same way, so "the 463, 464 and 465 Series, ..., the 447 Series, the 450 Series and the 451 Series electrical multiple units (EMU)."
• Furthermore, they consist of double-decker cars, becoming the only type of bilevel rolling stock... "becoming" does not work here. Suggest "and are".
• Normally, the 450 Series runs only on R2 Sud services... 450 Series is plural, so "runs" should be "run".
• whilst the 451 Series runs only either on R2 Sud services... "Whilst" is a bit old-fashioned, and "runs only either" does not work. Suggest "while the 451 Series run either on R2 Sud services..."

Future

• According to this project, the current R2 will be extended... "According to this project" does not work well. Suggest "If this plan is implemented, ..."
• R2 trains will continue to use the Aragó Tunnel in central Barcelona with the new line scheme, which is currently not possible due to the configuration of the southern rail accesses to Barcelona Sants. If they cannot use it at the moment, how will they continue to use it in the future? Clarification needed.
• a new underground route in L'Hospitalet de Llobregat. Is that "to L'Hospitalet de Llobregat" ?

Linking

• There are far too many wikilinks in the article. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, specifically "note that as a rule of thumb editors should only link the term's first occurrence in the text of the article." So "Sant Vicenç de Calders", which is a red link, is linked 5 or 6 times. It is ok to have one link in the lead, and the first link in the text, but the rest need to be de-linked. R13, which again is a red link, is linked 13 times in the table of stations. It should only be linked once.

I have finished reviewing the text. Do let me know if anything is not clear. I will move on to reviewing the references next. Back soon. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

• I have been able to check most of the references, as they are online, and while they generally support the text as written, there are just a few that need some attention.

• Ref 1(b) Línia R2. This is used to support the length of the line as 133 km, but the document says 130.7 km. Other refs use 133km, so you may want to use one of those instead.
• Ref 1(e) Linia R2. This is used to support the trains used on the line operate a total of 216 services every day. If Google translate is right, then the ref says "a total of 261 trains per workday circulate on the R2." The numbers are transposed, but this suggests that it is the number of trains, rather than the number of services.
• Ref 7(a) Línia R2 sud St. Vicenç de Calders - Barcelona E. França... This supports Like the rest of Rodalies de Catalunya lines, the R2 runs on the Iberian gauge mainline railway system, which is owned by Adif, an agency of the Spanish government. All of the railway lines carrying Rodalies de Catalunya services are electrified at 3,000 volts (V) direct current (DC) using overhead lines. The R2 operates on a total line length of 133 kilometres (83 mi), which is entirely double-track, except for the single-track section between El Prat de Llobregat and Barcelona–El Prat Airport stations. I cannot find this information in the reference (though I may be wrong). Ref 14 supports Iberian gauge (1668 mm) and 3000V DC.
• Ref 8 Listado de líneas y estaciones. This is a 66-page pdf file, and needs a page number, as you have done for refs 15 and 17.

Lead

• The lead should introduce the subject, and summarise the main points of the article. It does this reasonably well. The are a couple of issues.

• As Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, it should mention the country in which it is located, preferably in the first sentence.
• The R2 had an annual ridership of 33.6 million in 2016, achieving an average weekday ridership of 125,948... "achieving" is not a good word choice here. Suggest "with".
• The line originally had no branches, with Sant Vicenç de Calders and Maçanet-Massanes serving as its only southernmost and northernmost terminus, respectively. Terminus should be plural, but it would read much better as "The line originally had no branches, running between Sant Vicenç de Calders in the south and Maçanet-Massanes in the north." or similar.
• In 2009, it took over the service offered by Barcelona commuter rail service line R10. Offered is not a good word here. Suggest "In 2009, it took over the service previously provided by Barcelona commuter rail line R10." or similar.

The formal bit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See comments above

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See comments above

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

That is the review completed. Do let me know if anything is not clear. I have had fun trying to understand the Catalan sources. I will put the article on hold. You normally have 7 days to address the issues, but that is negotiable if you are making progress. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to work everything out this very afternoon (Central European time) because I won't be able to the following days. Mllturro (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I won't be able to edit the article until next week. I would be very grateful if you could give some more days. Mllturro (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No problen. As I said, the timescale is negotiable, as I know we all live busy lives, and Wikipedia is a spare-time activity. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mllturro: Hi. I was wondering how you are doing. It has now been over six weeks since the article was put on hold, and there are no obvious signs of progress. Perhaps you can let me know. Thanks. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It has now been eight weeks, and no progress has been made to address the issues raised by this review. I am therefore failing it. You can re-nominate it in due course, but please make sure that the issues raised above are addressed before doing so. Regards. Bob1960evens (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm sorry for not having replied. I have been very, very busy for the past few months. Perhaps I'll try to re-nominate it some time soon. Thank you for your review. Mllturro (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)