There is no such thing as clean VHS. VHS is roughly youtube's 240p quality.
Also the first video has 1440p options on youtube so why do you think it's compression giving bad quality? This is about as good as VHS gets. I think most people don't remember how bad it was on tiny CRTs.
That video is compressed to hell, it looks like a QuickTime or something from the 90s. That someone upconverted it to 1440p on YouTube is inconsequential. You can see the square MPEG blobs ferchrisakes!
Here is a dirty VHS with dropouts which looks WAY better:
VHS is about 240 lines horizontal resolution and 40-50 lines chroma resolution.
Even at 1440p the video has massive MPEG blocking, it's been heavily compressed after being captured off tape. VHS has not got MPEG-like compression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K8dUkeDZTM is an example of a badly-worn and therefore extremely "speckly" and dull VHS tape that I captured a while back. Youtube has a hard time with the chroma noise, but I didn't want to overcook it with denoising etc. so I just left it as it is.
These aren't even especially good captures, and were done off a not-properly-set-up "industrial" VHS machine which desperately needs realigned (and probably new heads), into a DV camcorder used as a DAC into a Firewire card.
The thing you have linked to is correct, but you're reading it wrong.
VHS has 240 *horizontal* lines of resolution, meaning that a grid comprising 240 alternating *vertical* black and white stripes ought to be resolvable as a bare minimum. This corresponds (roughly) to 2.5MHz of luminance bandwidth. This is also confusingly named, but there you go.
Youtube's 240p resolution is lower quality than VideoCD, and far *far* lower quality than even fairly manky VHS.
Also the first video has 1440p options on youtube so why do you think it's compression giving bad quality? This is about as good as VHS gets. I think most people don't remember how bad it was on tiny CRTs.