Talk:209 series/GA1

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

'''Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. ''' --Whiteguru (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)



Observations

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

HTML document size: 285 kB   Prose size (including all HTML code): 24 kB    References (including all HTML code): 51 kB    Wiki text: 75 kB    Prose size (text only): 16 kB (2619 words) "readable prose size" References (text only): 6644 B


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The Variants section is well laid out and easy to follow;
 * The leading infobox on the 209-0 series sets out basic configuration of these EMU sets. Subsequent infoboxes should list variations from this first delivery or be disposed of if there are no significant variations.
 * File:JRE 209-Naha1.jpg under the 209-0 infobox is superfluous as there is already an illustration of this series of EMU in the infobox.
 * The infobox on 209-950 series is superfluous given the brevity of this section and the links to the main article for E231 series § E231-900 series. Remove the infobox.
 * The image of the original 209-1000 series Jōban Line livery set under the 209-1000 series infobox can be moved across to the gallery
 * File:209kei 2000.JPG under the 209-2000/2100 series infobox can be moved across to the gallery
 * Move File:TWR 70-050 Osaki 20021228 (1).JPG under 209-3100 series infobox to the left and place it in a gallery


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * References are laid out correctly.
 * Copyvio check run. Violation Unlikely → 0.0%


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Broad coverage of each variation of the JR East 209 series EMU, allocation to services and depots.
 * Articles like this can be subject to "rivet counting" and it appears same with multiple infoboxes.
 * Not all infoboxes show traction information and there are no link to the IGBT-VVVF traction system.


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutal point of view is presented in this article.


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Page created 22 October 2006
 * Page has 562 edits by 150 editors
 * Page has 34 reverts in history
 * 90 day page views = 3390 views with a daily average of 37 views
 * ClueBot NG has been on the page 5 times indicating a very low level of mischielf
 * Page history is considered stable.


 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Page has 29 images.
 * All images examined for fair use rationales and appropriate text
 * KuHa 209-3003 of set 63 showing transverse seating bay added experimentally in 2004 is not a good image. It is difficult to see the transverse bay seating due the dark window pane. Suggest remove this image.


 * 1) Overall:
 * This is a long page with sections on each variant of the JR 209 EMU sets delivered to traffic.
 * The multiple infoboxes make this a long page. However, information is both basic and different with each 209 variant.
 * Layout suggestions have been made. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Legitimate concerns raised in the review; no improvements made; Matters raised in the review were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)