Talk:High Speed 1/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

I will be doing the GA Reassessment on this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is very informative and comprehensive. I'll outline a few concerns that I have here:

1. Per WP:LEAD the lead is to contain a summary of all the main points of the article. In this case the lead should be expanded to conform to this requirement. Specifically I do not see anything in the lead about: the history of the project, and the cost crises in 1998, and 2001, and future plans for the project.

2. In the Project section at the end there is a statement that on Oct. 12, 2009 it was announced that 16 billion pounds of stock were to be sold to cover public debt. What was the result of this? Has the sale happened? What is the current financial situation of the project?

From my perspective nothing has happened. It's much like most political ideas broadcasted before an election, the action will happen afterwards. Though likelihood is that it's going to be hard sell to pursuade anybody to take the line on; no news on interested parties that want to buy it. Kyteto (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

3. Watch overlinking Channel Tunnel. It's a small thing but I noted at least 5 times in the article where the term was linked.

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

4. In the St. Pancras station section there is a template from December 2009, this should be addressed.

5. There is a brief allusion to "early protests" in the Tunnels subsection of the Infrastructure section. What early protests?

6. There is another template in the Southeastern subsection of the Operators section.

7. I'm a little skeptical of the final section, Additional information. Could this be better organized, or folded into the rest of the article. This section is essentially "miscellaneous", with a hodge podge of facts. The information is good and very topical. It just seems like most of it could find a home in other sections. For example, the paragraph on deaths could go either into the Project or Route section, perhaps having a subsection on construction in one of those sections would work. That would also create a place for the second paragraph on construction.

8. There are several dead links in the reference section: Ref. 20 requires a subscription and this should be specified in the ref, ref 38 links to the most recent issue rather than issue 75, refs 37, 43, 79, and 69 are dead links. These will need to be fixed.

Could you point the dead links out to us again please? The reordering of the article makes the currently listed numbers invalid; that way we can find them and fix them. Kyteto (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made a lot of progress, the only link that appears to have issues is Ref 63, my ISP won't open it, but that could be me. If you find it working and ok then disregard. Also I'm not sure if this was something on the to do list but I note several references have simply the web site with no publisher or accessdate. These include: 17, 18, 64, and 93 isn't really a complete reference either (it should include title of the article and the date as well as accessdate). H1nkles (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For #63 do you mean the CNN one? It loads for me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've updated the other references. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the CNN one, if it loads for you then it is probably just my thing so no problem. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion I feel that this article is very good it just doesn't quite meet the GA Criteria as it currently stands. To boil down the assessment into my make or break issues I would say the lead needs to be expanded, the references need to be fixed and the templates should be addressed. The rest is more my opinion of the article and wouldn't disqualify it from GA status. I will put the article on hold for one week pending work. If you have questions or concerns please notify me at my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed Ref 20. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note that soon after this assessment, a major edit was done, which changed all these refs. However, I've found them: 37, Railway Gazette International needs a subsciption and logging in so I've marked it as such, saveashfordinternational and The HS1 list of contractors I've located on archive.org and changed the links to this. The Arup HS1 document wasn't needed as the whole sentence could be referenced by the one at the end of the sentence. However, I couldn't find Railway Hearld 75 in it's usual place so I've marked it as dead for the moment. Edgepedia (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

templates. One of these refers to the "security-sealed terminal area for Eurostar trains". This is very likely to be discussed in "From concept to reality". Modern Railways (Ian Allan Publishing): pp. 51. November 2007. Anyone got a copy? It's also shown on the Station map [1]. Not sure about the "designed for fast accerlation"; there's some comment about it in blogs, but I can't find a reference and it's not mentioned in the class 395 article. I suggest we just cut it out. Edgepedia (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the sale of HS1, the reference gives a timescale of two years. It was announced 4 months ago, I haven't heard anything and I doubt anything will be made public until the sale as been finalised. Edgepedia (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Noted, this suggestion re: comprehensiveness is not a make or break issue, I figured it was still unresolved. No need to pursue that further, thanks for checking. H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the Railway Herald issue, they have a new website: http://www.railwayherald.org/. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation demands have been taken care of. Additional Information section has been redistributed by me. I have also cited the Early Protests against the plans. Kyteto (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that rating this article as GA is premature. I think that it is a good Cat B, but that is all. There is not enough on the history of the project, nor on the infrastructure. The article is padded to heavily by the Operations section, which as always happens, is stuffed with too much information on the trains and routes served, which is related too, but not really a primary part of the article. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I am inclined to agree with you that the GA status of this article has been somewhat undeserving. Back in mid 2007 the user anthonycfc kicked a whole load of railway-related articles up to GA class with no discussion or review process. Now the GA process wasn't as developed as it was by the following year; but the process did not seem to perform actualy quality checks and improvements to the article itself, simply a two minute tick-off and dash onto the next article. I've already done much to bring this article up, having more than doubled the references in the past (it was in a great deal worse shape back in August 2009!) but it is still lacking in my own eyes. To be honest, I'm happy enough with it retaining its GA status as many of the flaws that people have pointed out over the last few months have actually been worked on, but I have my doubts as to weither it would be able to rise from GA status today if it were still a B class now. I would prefer if this article is to lose its GA status, then its flaws be listed and editors given the time to fix them. Kyteto (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Could it be dropped to an A class article? Or is that a silly suggestion? I suggest it because every vaguely decent article of a decent length seems to be B class. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

A class is well above GA class. Mjroots (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am gratified that this review has generated discussion on the article's GA merits. This is the point of the GA Sweeps project, to go through the old articles promoted prior to the tightening of the GA standards. I usually approach these reviews from the perspective that the burden of proof is on the side of demoting. That there needs to be enough evidence that the article doesn't meet GA Criteria to overcome the status quo. I've listed the flaws that I have found in my review and it appears as though editors are working on them. I am admittedly not an expert in this field and so I could not adequately speak to the comprehensive issues raised by Bhtpbank. We have some time, and I can extend the hold by a week if editors would like a little more time to work on it. If you don't feel that the article can be improved by the end of February then I will likely demote it to a B class as we are at the very end of the Sweeps project and just trying to get the last articles done. Thank you all for your commitment to the quality of the articles. Let me know what you think. H1nkles (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week and so I'm wondering where are we at with this review? Would you like me to extend the hold or do you feel it is ready to be reviewed again? What about the concerns of Users Bhtpbank and Kyeto? Have those been addressed? I can certainly read through the article and give my assessment of the progress if that is what you'd like. H1nkles (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could read through the article and give an assessment of the progress that would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Second Review

• Lead is good
• In the Project section, is there a way to either expand the last sentence or fold it in to the preceding paragraph? A one-sentence paragraph, a stub, is not ideal. Also has there been any developments on the February 2006 attempted take over? The paragraph is sort of left hanging. If nothing has progressed then perhaps put something to that effect so that readers are not left feeling like the article is out of date.
• See WP:access regarding layout of images, the images should not spill over from one section, or sub-section, to another. I'm looking mostly at the Route and Stations sections. Personally I think there are plenty of images in the article and some of the less informative images could be removed. Remember not to force the size down if at all possible.
• I also noticed that the "High Speed One/CTRL" info box has no reference in it. Is this intentional? I'm not familiar enough with transportation articles to know if this is necessary but it seems like it should have one.

I think there has been great progress made. I can't speak to the concerns of the other users and I will ask them to join the conversation at this point. If you address these issues and they are happy with the article from a comprehensive stand point then I'll keep it. H1nkles (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded the last paragraph of the project section and removed a couple of the images. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

On the infobox these route maps don't usually have sources. See for example Template:Circle Line RDT and even Template:C&SLR_route_map which is in a featured article (City and South London Railway). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's good just figured I'd ask. Thanks for getting back to me. I've placed a request on the talk pages of the two editors that had listed concerns about this article's GA status. I'll give them a few days to respond. H1nkles (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any major outstanding problems remaining now, in my own opinion I think the article should now remain as a Good Article. There will have to be some changes in several months time when freight operations begin and the line is truely brought into use (and once again when the Midland Main Line is refitted in the distant future for overhead electrical operation and regauged, which in turn will boost the usefulness of the freight route into Europe). Nothing else preoccupies my mind in terms of High Speed 1. Kyteto (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the work done on the article I will keep it as GA, my thanks to the other reviewers and editors who worked hard to maintain this article at GA Standards. H1nkles (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)