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)

Starts GA Review. The review will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --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)