Talk:Hyosung GT650

Horsepower and torque tested values replaced with factory claims? From 3 years earlier?
This cited horsepower and torque is from an actual test performed by an independent magazine, on a 2007 model:
 * Horsepower 66.2 bhp @ 8800 rpm, torque 44 lbft @ 7400 rpm

While this one is nothing more than parroting the factory claimed horsepower, and it dates 3 years earlier, for the 2004 model:
 * 58.5 kW

So why was the first one removed and the older, non-independent source put in its place?

(I will add more sources to back up the other deleted material on how the GT650R was developed and restore it in due course).--Dbratland (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Every car and motorcycle article I view on wiki uses manufacturer claims, if you're going to try and refute them they better be widely acknowledged as false, and details of the testing made abundantly clear. I don't have a position on the reverse engineering stuff, but it was a huge negative POV to a tiny article with a single source for something which is of questionable notability. Also when citing a source writing things like 'according to xyz' is redundant and just looks like advertising for the source, make the statement, reference it correctly (as you have in this Talk page), and all the relevant details are in the correct place. Oosh (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not true that every car and bike article uses only claimed numbers when there is independent test data to go by. Obviously, some Wikipedia articles have this flaw -- after all, other stuff exists, but that doesn't make it right.  Manufacturer claims are acceptable for some non-disputed numbers like wheelbase or tire size, but motorcycle weight, fuel economy, power and torque are notoriously exaggerated by the manufacturers.  I actually prefer to cite both the claimed statistic and what independent sources found in testing (for example, in Ducati 848), because the difference between the two is rather telling.  Consider the gulf between Hyosung's claimed power and weight for their bike, and the what testers found.  In any case, deleting independent test data from 2007 and replacing it with claimed values from 2004 is inexplicable to me. If you have read any independent reviews on the Hyosung GT650R, you know that the bike has been universally panned.  It might seem slanted to say so in this article, but I am not going to have any trouble piling on more sources that agree the bike has numerous embarrassing flaws, and it is widely recognized as a copy of the Suzuki SV650.  As when a film is panned, WP does not suppress negative reviews, but rather tries to report the reactions accurately. I disagree with your style advice in this case, because I think when reporting subjective opinions, it's better to be as clear as possible who is saying it, beyond a footnote alone.  I don't know of any style guidelines or policies saying otherwise, and a glance at some Featured Articles shows that the style I used is the norm:  Under_the_Bridge, Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope, V_for_Vendetta_(film) etc. After I have compiled more sources, I'll put my changes here on the talk page or a workpage to see if there are any major objections.--Dbratland (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking for some consistency across motorcycle articles, the Hyosungs have definite flaws that were all to apparent when first release but also suffered a hostile press from being new kids on the block, in much same way your gas attendant anecdote described. But the issues are something they've worked on and not an endemic problem - terms like universally panned are simply not true."Korean brand Hyosung has been a massive success story in Australia, particularly since the Melbourne-based PS Importers became the national distributor in April, 2006. ... The genesis of the whole Hyosung phenomenon has been great bikes at a bloody good price, and nothing has changed on that front, particularly as the brand is finally starting to reap the benefits of being a part of the massive S&T Group of Industrial companies."
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oosh (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 September 2009
 * My two cents — the development history and specifications of the vehicle should be neutrally reported and reporting of criticism kept to an appropriate "reactions" section or such, with appropriate citations of course. A claim of similar styling and market positioning to other manufacturers' models is especially sensitive and should be carefully cited. I think we got rid of the "similar" section of the Motorcycle infobox across the board, for this reason; it just led to a lot of subjective evaluation that didn't improve Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oosh, are seriously going to attempt to argue here that http://bikesales.com.au/ is an independent, reliable source? I am not in any way claiming that my original edit was close to perfect -- otherwise I'd have reverted it.  I will work to make it better-sourced  before adding the review section back in the article, and I welcome editing assistance in improving the wording.  --Dbratland (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)