Wikipedia:Peer review/Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151/archive1

Kawasaki Heavy Industries C151

I finally had some time to have another go at article writing again. This article has been substantially rewritten with a view of hopefully making it the first electric multiple unit article to reach FA status (however impossible it seems these days). The closest standard I could base it on is OS MX3000 (a GA). - Mailer Diablo 08:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head: Two citation needed tags need fixing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. They have been newly added after the review was started. Will go through them slowly. - Mailer Diablo 13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just fixed the cn tags. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RO

Lead

• is a type of train that is one of the four current types

This needs polishing.

• four cars were purchased

By whom?

• These trains were manufactured from 1986 to 1989 in batches by a Japanese consortium headed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries

How about, "The trains were manufactured in batches from 1986 to 1989, by a Japanese consortium headed by Kawasaki Heavy Industries"?

Tendering process

• submitted bids for what they had nicknamed the "Big One".[

Drop "had"; no need for past perfect.

• Competition for the contract was so fierce

"Fierce" is a bit loaded for encyclopedic writing.

• However, analysts became concerned that a measuring

Avoid using "however" in formal writing.

Initial construction

• during the 1984 National Exhibition held in November 1984 at World Trade Centre.[18]

No need to say 1984 twice.

• The colour scheme of each adjacent car's interior is distinct to make car identification in cases of fault reporting easier for passengers

This confused me. What's fault reporting?

• consume 50% less electricity

Should be "50 percent".

Second refurbishment

• Why no cost estimate for the second refurbishment? It would be interesting to see if the move saved over the rolling stock.

Train Formation

• Some of the details here appear to be uncited. Make sure everything is properly sourced.

Conclusion

It's a nice piece overall. Some sections, such as Operational details, are a little too technical, but maybe that can't be avoided. There are also parts that are a little dry with detail, but again, maybe that's the nature of this type of article. Seems pretty comprehensive, but it'd be interesting to know if they saved money by going the refurbishment route after those later repairs were made. Nicely done; keep up the great work! RO^(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)