Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rail transport in Vietnam/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Rail transport in Vietnam edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I truly believe the primary contributor of this article, Dragfyre, has done an excellent job of research in this particular field in order to produce a well-written and referenced article. I want to see what I can do and how far I can take this article (FA, I hope!). Any comments will be warmly welcomed.

Thanks, Sp33dyphil (T • C • I love Wikipedia!) 06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chipmunkdavis edit

Beautiful little article. Definitely no longer stub-class!

History
  • "the latter being a refurbishment of an older narrow gauge line running from Phu Lang Thuong to Lang Son." This railway appears out of nowhere. Considering the paragraph before dealt with the first ever raillines, it is strange that the second discusses the refurbishment of older lines.
  • "Paul Doumer Bridge (now known as Long Bien Bridge)" appears in both the text and the picture caption, and could probably be removed from one (the caption doesn't really need it). Additionally, if the date for the picture is known, it should be placed in the caption.
    • Fixed the image caption. The date for the photo is not indicated on Commons, but we may be able to figure that out by rooting through the Dieulefils collection's database.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The construction of the Yunnan line was not without controversy, nor without consequences; over 25,000 workers, both Vietnamese and Chinese, died working on the line." Not a very encyclopaedic tone, maybe it is better to simply state there was controversy and the death figures.
    • I agree this is poorly worded. I've been trying to corroborate the death figures with those cited in other sources, and when that's figured out, I'll fix this part. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Done—found a better reference, and will write more about it in a forthcoming History article. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 04:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chinese railway engineering troops" Were these PRC troops?
    • Yes, PRC troops. Good catch, this should be specified is fixed now.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "significantly increasing shipping capacity; as well, a third rail was added to the existing lines" Remove the "as well", make the whole thing two separate sentences.
  • "effectively converting them from to mixed gauge lines." Is the "from" there in error?
    • Yup, a typo. "converting them to mixed gauge lines". Fixed.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section ends with reunification with a slight note of the Sino-Vietnam war. If a little bit more on the past couple of decades is added, it will be extremely solid.
    • Noted. I've found some source material for this time period and will write something up soon. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Network
  • "most of which are located along the North-South line" Is it possible to get a figure?
    • Yup. From List of railway lines in Vietnam: "As of 2005, there were 278 stations on the Vietnamese railway network, 191 of which are located along the North-South Railway line." References are in that article.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would permit new international railway links" I'm not sure permit is the right word there.
    • Changed to "would establish Vietnam's first international railway links to...".   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the current lines table it may be worth placing a footnote stating information is missing. I'm most confused by the question mark after Meter Gague in the Pho Lu–Xuan Giao entry. Is it is unknown, it should be ?? like other boxes.
    • In this case, it should be ?? until the gauge can be confirmed. Metre gauge was my own educated guess. Now fixed.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defunct lines, dates of construction would be useful for incomplete lines, possibly placed in notes.
  • "the line is the only main line in China using metre gauge, (or dual gauge, since it can also be converted to standard gauge)" This needs to be clarified. Metre or dual?
    • "only main line in China using metre gauge" is from Yunnan–Vietnam Railway, added by a previous contributor. This needs further research to clarify, but from what I've read in different places, the section of the line in the PRC still exists in metre gauge and is currently out of service, but is scheduled for conversion into a mixed-gauge line. Anyone who has further information, please feel free to add useful references. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the 1930s, to be connected to Cambodia;" To be connected to Cambodia seems redundant
    • Perhaps it should read: "with the intent of extending it further into Cambodia"?   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High speed railway
  • "National Assembly deputies had asked for further study of the project." "Have" not "had"?
Subways and light rail
  • "including a rapid transit system including five routes." " including a rapid transit system with five routes" or something similar would be better than repeating "including"
Infrastructure
  • "despite temporary restoration following the war" Temporary restoration?
    • Meaning, a low-quality, makeshift restoration to get it up and running quickly, requiring a more complete restoration later on. I agree it's a confusing turn of phrase. Update: I've changed this to "despite their restoration following the war" for now, until I can think of a better way to say it.   Done --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Vietnam Railways train enters a tunnel north of Quy Nhon." Passes through may be more accurate than enters, as the video covers the entire tunnel.
Railway management
  • In its current state needs to be broken up into a couple of paragraphs
  • This section seems to be mostly history (move to history section?) and there is little else about railway management not mentioned elsewhere. The section would be improved by an expansion on information about the company that manages it. This also seems to be a useful section to expand on foreign investment and help, as it seems countries such as Japan are interested, along with possibly information about any ASEAN cooperation.
  • The main article listed, Vietnam Railways, seems to be a duplication of this article. Merge or remake, but don't list as a main in its current form.
    • Good point. The content of Vietnam Railways was merged into this article, since most of the information there seemed better suited to this one. I agree that that article needs a lot of rework, and if it's best to delink it as a main article in the interim, then let's delink. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delinked for now. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also
  • Two of the See also's are mentioned in the article. It might be good to link to articles about any other companies, or similar projects such as tram lines.

Overall, a good article. It may be worth running through prose, as there are a lot of long sentences that have been created through the use of semi-colons that may be better written if split up into multiple sentences. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great observations. I've added a few of my own observations, and as long as I can make the time, I'm definitely be available to help further develop this article. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rail_transport_in_Vietnam/archive1&oldid=1030530691"