Talk:209 series/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

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

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

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%

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.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

Neutal point of view is presented in this article.

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.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]