Talk:Taiwan High Speed Rail/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The lead is somewhat short (but not much). More importantly, the paragraphs are very short, and prose that length should not be more than two paragraphs. Several places throughout the article some of the paragraphs are very short.
    • So? Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what Arsenikk means is that, for such a long article, the lead is shorther than would be expected. On the length of paragraphs, what I think he means is that one sentence per paragraph looks odd—it disrupts the prose. What I would suggest (and what I think he is suggesting) is that the lede be combined into two paragraphs, so the prose flows better, and then the lead be slightly expanded so it summarises the entire article. Wackywace converse | contribs 12:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lede now reordered and not just slightly expanded to summarize the entire article. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox used is intended for North American railway companies, not railway lines and network such as THSR. I would recommend using {{Infobox rail line}}. For instance, reporting mark is a NA phenomena, similarly the infobox lacks a number of technical details.
  • "build-operate-transfer" should be lower-case.
  • Stick the references behind all punctuation, including parenthesis etc. at the end of sentences.
    • Done. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved remaining references to ends of sentences. -Multivariable (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you misread Arsenikk here: I think he noticed one place where a sentence ended with ). and I placed the ref tag before the closing paranthesis. But, even if you did not misread Arsenikk, check WP:REFPUN: reference tags can be placed in the middle of the sentence. Given that many of the citations were placed in the middle of the sentence because they are for specific parts of the sentence only, moving them to sentence ends makes the connections harder to find (especially if there are half a dozen ref tags). I request that you undo all of those edits. (I don't hit Undo because you made a number of other changes.) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it was the parenthesis thing I was referring to. Refs can be in the middle of sentences, but if they are at the end, they go after punctuation (not before). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All units need to be converted to imperial; this is easiest done using {{convert}}.
  • In the first sentence under "civil works", a better word than "realized" would be preferred. While probably correct, other terms are easier to understand.
    • Hm, do you have a proposal that's easier? "were under the responsibility of" was the best I could think of, which is now in the article; but you tell me if it is easier to understand. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't measure distances of hundreds of km in m and ft, but rather in km and mi.
    • In the specific instance of the record length bridge, when the significant digit is metre, I don't see the point. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then use km with three decimals. That is the common way of doing things, is more professional and is less stressing on the reader (particularly the ft). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm, I'm not sure it is the common way of doing things in metric. Using metre as unit for even very long objects is common in professional engineering literature and even general media when reporting on those. (The source article for the bridge length in question used metre as unit, too.) However, imperial units are another thing; I changed the metre to foot conversions to metre to mile conversions with three decimals for all lengths above 10,000 m. Is that acceptable? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is TRUPO? Is it an acronym for something? If it isn't, it should be lower case. If it is, spell it out.
    • It IS spelt out, right on first occurence at the start of the Civil Works section.--Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very seldom optimal to write prose with parenthesis. While technically correct, good prose uses commas and full sentences or fragments to portray the information. For instance "(3.5% at one location)" should be taken out of the parenthesis and made a fragment after a comma, such as ", although it is 3.5% at one location.
    • Done with a few exceptions. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There will of course always be some places that parenthesis are a good choice, but not for longer sections of text. Looks good as far as I can see. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once I rewrite the most criticised Revenues section, almost all parantheses will have disappeared. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When mentioning disjunctions, such as "Tainan–Kaohsiung" and "Japanese–European", use an endash (–) instead of a hyphen (-).
  • Is there an article on the Minister of Transport? If so, link to it.
    • There is a link in the article to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, but I there is not an article specifically for the Minister of Transport. -Multivariable (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid using "see Foo" to direct readers to navigate the article.
  • The sentence starting with "Despite pre-opening doubts," seems redundant, POV and is unreferenced. I would suggest removing it.
    • The THSR was highly controversial and some reference to those "doubts" is quite necessary for NPOV. (A reference would, of course, be nice though.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpatokal (talk • contribs)
      • This sentence lost its original context while editing; while a source on pre-reference doubts regarding modal share would indeed be nice, I don't have one as of yet, so I removed the sentence for now. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trains do not normally operate with full capacity, so the figures given in the environmental section seem a bit fuzzy. I am a little concerned about the environmental section, not because there is any non-environmental about the project, nor because anything should be removed, but, well, it seems a bit of a coatrack. On the other side, I'm not 100% sure what to do about it, if removing the section is a good idea or not.
    • What does "coatrack" mean? --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Arsenikk means that the section just seems to be there. Although it is informational, well-cited, etc., it appears to contribute less than other sections to the overall article. Perhaps converting it into a sub-section of History? -Multivariable (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So that's what "coatrack" means. Now, the three points in it were originally part of different sub-sections of History, but I separated them out because none really fitted in, especially the one on the energy consumption and emissions of the trains (that's an operation parameter, not history). I'm not sure what to do with it at the moment, will think about it later, but IMO its parts should stay together. (I am sorry BTW for this low-frequency activity after having requested GA myself, but while I waited for the review, I started another big project on the Korea Train Express and attached pages, which should be done with by November 1.) --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps the technical details could go under rolling stock? Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I moved the energy consumption figures to the Rolling stock section as suggested, and the other two back to construction. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rolling stock is a vital part of the system, and I would like to see a longer section. In particular more specifications such as train length, power output etc. Doesn't have to be a lot.
    • There is the separate article for that.--Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is very little on the rolling stock. I would of course expect a four-page article on the rolling stock there (or how much there now is to write), but the rolling stock is one of the most important aspects of the system. Remember: many people may chose to use this article is such a way that links and subpages do not become available (printing, then reading, the article; copying to other web sites etc). Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I got your point now. I expanded that section as suggested; and, having noticed that the linked article is unsourced, I sourced and totally re-edited it, too... --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6-12" should be "six to twelve".
  • "Business" should not be capitalized.
  • When writing a date with American formatting (Month DD, YYYY) there is always a comma or period (full stop) after the year.
  • "Seniors" is a better term than "old people".
  • "Business Class" is not a proper noun, and thus not capitalized.
    • Business and standard class might be generic terms for airlines (I don't know), but for railways, they aren't. Standard would be 1st class, 2nd class; any designations deviating from that (Business Class, Economy Class, Standard Class, Comfort, Green Car, even First Class when spelled out) are trademarks for services. However, the article was not consistent in the usage of the correct terms here, which are "Business Car" and "Standard Car"; I corrected that. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the "Annual traffic figures" table is good, encyclopedic and relevant, the table "Milestones in cumulative passenger numbers" is not. What it presents is mere trivialities and because the delta varies in the left column, it is nearly impossible to get an intuitive value out of. Such information is best presented as ridership/time period, either in table or graph format.
    • Milestones table now dumped from the article (I 'archived' it to the Commons description page of the daily ridership diagram), but I kept the 10 millionth and 100 millionth passenger milestones as text. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a section on revenue is fine, the the table is excessive. The information presented is too detailed for an encyclopedia, and is also presented in a way that only specialists are able to understand. People really interested in this information can look at the annual report.
    • I'll attempt a re-edit and return to the issue of the entire section here in the Discussion section in detail later (possibly days later, sorry). However, the table is definitely not excessive: it presents only the four main markers of performance (which are referenced haphazardly in the media), separates out the items that really matter (depreciation, interest), and puts all three years side by side; whereas the annual reports list some hundred items and further sub-sums on multiple pages, and compare only two years each if at all. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terms such as "operating costs", "depreciation", "financial costs", "cash-flow", "break-even" and "depreciation period" need to be wikilinked. The whole section on revenue is very prone to technical terminology, and I fear that a person without background in economics or finance will have a hard time understanding it.
    • Wikilinking done where possible. I also corrected some imprecisions (EBITDA and operating cash flow resp. EBIT and operating income differ etc.). Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles on accounting terms are low-quality to non-existent. Regarding understanding, first, let me offer my own perspective as a person without background in economy, and one without English as first language to boot. When I first met upon these terms in English-language news media (where they are rarely if ever explained, even if it's not a business paper), financial statements in table form were a great help: it was easier to figure out what is what when seeing the connections, seeing the sequence of additions and subtractions. This was also a reason I added the table criticised in the previous point; a help for the reader reading the text of the Revenues and costs section. Second, the 'story' of this section is "why is THSRC making a loss", and that story is about depreciation and interest. IMO this subject is an essential part of for an encyclopaedic article on the subject, but it's difficult to avoid technical terminology when talking about depreciation and interest without going towards accounting 101. Third, wouldn't then be best to give the information for those who can understand it and allow others the options to skip the section or to go educating themselves (following the wikilinks now added)? --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence starting with "By the summer of 2009", "two thirds" should be "two-thirds".
  • "Fat cats" needs to be explained.
    • What aspect of it? --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what Arsenikk means here is, although "fat cats" makes sense in the context of the article, its use in this article (even with quotations) is still confusing. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better phrase at the moment. -Multivariable (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is, you read Arsenikk's request to mean that the expression is not plain English enough, and a definition should be given? Will think about this; I thought he might be asking for the explanation of some aspect of the controversy. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me be more specific: "fat cat" is not an encyclopedic term, but a weasel word. If you cannot find a better term, it must be left out. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I used "fat cats" because it was how politicians, the media, and the accused themselves commonly referred to this controversy. I now gave an explanation to the paragraph, adding an extra link to an article on the "fat cat" resolution of the Taiwanese parliament, in which the Financial Supervisory Commission chairman is quoted with a definition of the term, which I paraphrased. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Technical issues, incidents and accidents" should just use regular prose, not bullet points.
  • The table should be using endashes instead of hyphens.
  • An "in popular culture" section is seldom suitable for rail transport articles, and at least not for such trivial mention as here. In addition, it is not referenced.
    • I agree, this section seems almost trivial, but the fact that the system has its own (wikilinked) video game amounts to something. However, this doesn't necessarily fit in anywhere else in the article either. -Multivariable (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't wrote or edit that part, however, I have encountered similar sections in several Wikipedia articles on rail lines or other architectural objects, in particular mentions of the train simulators, so I thought that that section is fine where it is. However, I'm not a gamer myself, and I am not familiar with the TV show Amazing Race, so I can't tell if these provided a similar level of public attention to the line as, say, the film Mission:Impossible did for the Channel Tunnel. I would like to look for sources before deciding on removing the section or not. --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • While M:I was a blockbuster and actually may have had a certain promotional value for the Chunnel, I doubt either of the two issues here are known much beyond their fan circles. Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now sourced both, and added a third, a Taiwanese movie (which I ended up watching in full). Regarding importance, I don't know what standard to meet, so I just present what I found; if you or others say it's still all too trivial, I would not be against dumping the entire section.
          • For The Amazing Race, I found US TV ratings for this specific episode, and some articles speaking of the show's tourism boosting effect in general, so I'd guess there is a promotional value. (On the other hand, I looked at it on YouTube, and found it awful crap...) For the train simulator, I found it warranted an article in Taipei Times; on the other hand, the video gamer reviews I found were not too kind. Regarding the movie Summer's Tail, I submit that THSR is more background than plot element, but the director is quoted joking that he should have titled it "High-Speed Rail's Tail". --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "High-speed rail" is linked in the article, and "rail transport in Taiwan" is linked in a navbox, so neither should be in the "see also" section.
  • First see also, then references, then further reading, then external links.
    • Done. I'll have to think about your other proposals resp. they will be more work than I have time for tonight. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the article on hold. Overall the article is well written, interesting and covers all relevant areas. The above are all smaller details that are easily correct. Arsenikk (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few more things to do here ;) Arsenikk (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has stood at a stand-still for nearly a month now, despite numerous unresolved issues. I am therefore failing the article. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Having requested the GA review myself, I apologise for this stand-still; but I was too caught up in another project that had current event relevance and needed a total re-edit of one main and two dozen related articles... I'll re-nominate this one only once I deal with the outstanding issues. This will probably take a few more weeks, as I'm still putting finishing touches to the other project. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: some unregistered editor Romanised and inserted the normal fare table from the Chinese Wikipedia version of the article. Back in September I thought about inserting it but decided against, thinking it would be lots of useless data. But I'm not removing it now that someone else put it in, unless a reviewer says so. (But I had to update it, the inserted table had the old Business Car prices...) --Rontombontom (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion on the Revenue section[edit]

I have no economics background and indeed found this section rather turgid and impenetrable. It shoudl be rewritten in good plain English with appropriate wiki-links. I also note that the preceding section is titled Ridership. This is not an English word to my knowledge. Passenger levels would be better. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your knowledge is limited: Ridership. Jpatokal (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a British vs. American terminology thing, though I find "ridership" in British railway publications and even Transport of London documents (see discussion on KTX Talk page). However, given that the article started out in American English (which I kept to as per Wikipedia policy even though I'm annoyed by the double-inverted date format), it should stay.
The difficulty both reviewers had with the economy section perlex me (I have no economics background, either), I'll react to that later. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try clarifying statements like: "The operational break-even level (income less operating costs, excluding depreciation and financial costs)"; "The cash-flow break-even level (excluding depreciation)"; "adopted a new depreciation charge that is variable in time."; "blamed an unreasonable financial structure,"; "when an income of NT$1.9 billion in ticket and NT$0.2 billion in other sales stood against operating costs around NT$0.85-0.9 billion and interest payments around NT$1.3 billion per month". Try removing the gobble-de-gook and rewriting in plain english. would be my recommendation. With regards to "ridership", I see it redirects to patronage. Obviously some sorto of word used in US transport circles, but not plain English. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's not "gobble-de-gook", that's standard financial terminology. I really don't see how you can describe "cash-flow break-even level excluding depreciation" as anything else than, uhh, cash-flow break-even level excluding depreciation -- this is not the Simple English wikipedia, where that would have to be formulated as "the level where more money is coming in than going out, but let's pretend we don't notice that that some things get old and die". Jpatokal (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to the same Q at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations; bottomline (pun) is that "Revenue" section which really about losses can be safely trimmed down and merged with "Management" which is really "Financial management" (i.e. not operational, not technical etc.). The P&L table would look better exressed in billions, with insignificant lines merged or removed (who cares about 1 mil in tax credit if there's a 5 billion loss?). East of Borschov 06:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per above, I'll deal with the main bones of contention with the Revenues section later; however, some quick comments on the above: reducing the workforce and replacing management itself go beyond financial management; this is an encyclopaedia and not a news article so I see no reason to round sourced data (or do you mean to do it by keeping six digits behind the decimal dot?); pre-tax and after-tax net income are different things even if their value is nearly the same; and methinks some readers will care about whether the company pays taxes or not. --Rontombontom (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to respond to Jezhotwells's continued questioning of the term ridership: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so Jpatokal's link to that stub article was little helpful. Instead, I suggest that you look at the widespread usage of the term in Wikipedia articles like Bay Area Rapid Transit (a GA), List of United States light rail systems by ridership, Oslo Metro (also GA), or indeed Template:Infobox rail line. As an Americanism, it is not limited to 'US transport circles', but plain English enough to be used by common newspapers, for example this. Although an Americanism, it is even spreading in the UK, see Transport of London's page on London Buses (which is again a general page). --Rontombontom (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now re-edited the Revenues and costs section. On one hand, I tried to add short definitions to the terms. On the other hand, I changed the structure. Previously, the text was a history, dealing with all developments in their sequence in time. I thought things will be easier to understand if the text walks through the different measures of financial performance, giving the development in time separately. I also moved some stuff to the start of the Management section.
As I wrote in a comment to Arsenikk above, this section is not merely about dry numbers, or just about losses as East of Borschov wrote: the sources allow us to say something about why the company is (was?) making a net loss. The very short answer would be that two high extra cost items emerged from realising a mega-project as build-operate-transfer private investment. So tell me if that shines through in the new version of the text. --Rontombontom (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the accessdates be written out, like Retrieved 13 September 2010 instead of Retrieved 13-09-2010? Otherwise, I think this a great article, even a possible FAC. --Eisfbnore (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a MoS guideline on this? --Rontombontom (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DATESNO. --Eisfbnore talk 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Reading it and reading your objection again, I first note that the accessdates resp. dates in the article are in ISO 8601 format, with year first. I think the accessdates (and dates) in the References definitely don't constitute use in prose, and arguably no use within sentences, but could be considered a long list, and I definitely did use them for conciseness; thus in my opinion the guideline is fulfilled. The requirement for format consistency in the references is also fulfilled. --Rontombontom (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking the Talk pages, I find that the specific issue of YYYY-MM-DD in footnotes has been subject to great controversy, with some administrators arguing strongly against my interpretation above. However, the dispute led to this failed RfC, with 33 for, 70 against and 4 neutral on a specific ban. --Rontombontom (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail/GA1&oldid=1137217380"