Talk:HSR-350x/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: Seven links to irail.net return blank pages, it may be that server is down. I will check again tomorrow. Two links to kicttep.re.kr transfer to a https site and my browser reports unsafe connection using Firefox, loads OK with IE. Ref #9{http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f30_Lee.pdf] is a dead link.

I updated the irail links (they were migrated to the krri.re.kr site), and made a webcitation.org archiveurl for the link on the non-dead but apparently badly configured JRTR site. I'm still trying to find out what to make with the kicttep.re.kr links. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead should fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD
As far as I can see, the one section not summarized by the lead is the one on technical details. I added a sentence and a half. Is adding a sentence or two on that sufficient, or do think the summaries of the other sections need to be expanded? --Rontombontom (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When South Korea started its high-speed rail project, rolling stock and infrastructure was built in the framework of a technology transfer agreement between GEC-Alsthom (today Alstom), the main maker of French TGV high-speed trains, and South Korean companies. Ungrammatical and unclear.

"was" is frequently used where "were" would be correct.

Further progress with the testing programme was slow, because line capacity on the finished test section of the Gyeongbu HSR was limited due to the priority of the commissioning tests of the KTX-I trains. Clumsy and ungrammatical

The train was used for some more tests next year, and by February 2008, it ran a cumulative 207,000 km (129,000 mi). again very poor phrasing and grammar.

These are just examples. Overall this is badly written , over technical in its language. Recommend a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone who can turn this into good plain English, with explanation of technical terms.
OK, will ask someone. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref #9{http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr48/pdf/f30_Lee.pdf] is a dead link.

Other problems with on-line references noted above

Other references appear OK, no evidence of OR, assume good faith for those in Korean
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The first part of the History section fails to provide any background. Why was the project started?
Which project? The high-speed project (which is not the topic of this diary, but I could add it from Korea Train Express), or the G7 project? The reasons for the latter are discussed.
Well, as I said the prose is poor and it is not clear. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm trying to find out what's not clear :-) If the prose is poor, then it needs a copyedit, but above, you are saying that something is missing. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the article lacks is context. Background. Why was such a large sum of money invested in this project? Who proposed the project? Was there opposition? What were the conclusions of the project? Is any further development being undertaken? If not why? If yes why? Why, specifically was it felt necessary to develop a Korean project, what were the alternatives? What did the press say? Was it a political issue, etc. etc. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am again at a loss here, I thought the article addresses all of that, as far as reliable sources allow for it. (This is not a FAC nomination where the requirement is comprehensiveness and thus a nomination can be failed even if there is a lack of sources.)
"Such a large sum" – relative to what?

The first question is answered by "to increase the domestic added value, and to further improve the technology", and I could add something on hopes for export (but that's not central and more relevant to the KTX-II, which is discussed in its own article).

Sources I can find do not identify who proposed the project, coverage starts with the announcement of the project. (As a meta-comment, joint government-private industry projects in South Korea didn't excel in transparency in the past.)

Regarding opposition, if you think of NIMBY protests, this wasn't an infrastructure project so NIMBY protests are irrelevant; if you think of don't-waste-taxpayer-money type protests, I found no report of one. The only criticism I came across was about the technical failures in the first year or two, which is mentioned in the article.

The 'conclusions' of the project were the technologies adopted in the commercial version, the KTX-II, discussed in its own section.

Further development was done first in the KTX-II development and then the HEMU-400X project, again as mentioned in that section.

The Korean project question goes back to the first question, to which the issues of national industrial policy and national prestige can be added. There would be a story to tell about close government–private industry cooperation in South Korea to boost the national industry, but, when connected to the G7 project, not much is possible without WP:OR, and what is possible is covered in the section on the naming.

The one alternative would have been the continued import of French technology, and that alternative is obvious from the text even if badly written, I would think.

Beyond reporting the facts, the press didn't do much more than highlight project achievements as national achievements, echoing government press releases. But why would you think there would be more? This article is about a single experimental train, part of a project that was more or less a product development, and in that category beans compared to say a commercial airliner's development – not something big and by default controversial like a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project.

So, in conclusion, it appears to me that the context and background you are missing is either already there, or not available in reliable sources and of little importance. This may again be the result of bad writing (which I plan to address by asking some copyeditors), however, here I am trying to ascertain what if anything needs to be added to the article. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening now, most of the references are rather old. Is this train in service now? The artcile appears to need updating.
The article does say that this is an experimental train, so no service. It also says that the research program is over, and the Commercialisation section discusses what came after. There are no reliable sources I can find on where and how the train is stored, certainly not in English. The last event with a source is for the additional tests in 2008, in the last sentence you gave as example for poor phrasing. Later sources only mention the train as the ancestor of the KTX-II, the testing of which was concluded. --Rontombontom (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again clarity is needed in the writing. Currently it just looks like out of date information. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't refuse the clarity of writing criticism. Here I was trying to get confirmation that no content really needs to be added, as opposed to re-phrased. --Rontombontom (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Licensed and captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article needs considerable improvement to meet the WP:GACR. Copy-editing, updating, providing a background to the project. I think this is likely to take some time so I will not be listing this at this time. I would suggest that when work has been done, take this to peer review for futher comments before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jezhotwells issues with clarity - I wonder if moving the information South Korea's Ministry of Construction and Transportation (MOCT) started a project named G7 to develop domestic high-speed rail technology to a more visible (ealier) position would help readers get a handle on "what it's all about" - the G7 section currentlt jumps in at the deep end.Imgaril (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]