Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Oslo Metro rolling stock/archive1

Oslo Metro rolling stock

4 articles

T2000

I am nominating Oslo Metro rolling stock for GT because I feel it meets the criteria. The system has had three types of rolling stock, and the articles on these have all reached GA, along with an overview article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an honest question, as I'm unclear on the precise way the FTC criteria are applied and I'm new to this particular topic. Does History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro belong in this topic? It appears to be too general an article to really warrant it, but it is given a long section in the lead article. Assuming that article doesn't belong, easy support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All four articles are built around a 'history' and a 'specifications' section. For the main article, I included the history article as a {{main}} to show readers that the full history is available in another article. The rolling stock article is of course only related to the history of the rolling stock, and makes up perhaps a tenth or less of the scope of the main history article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think that excluding the history article is fine. While it is summarised at length in the lead, its scope does indeed cover a lot of things not covered by the lead. I think the two articles would be better placed as subarticles of a future Oslo Metro topic, as opposed to having the former appearing in the latter's topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks complete—Chris!_c/t 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great job! I just have some consistency concerns: History or Background? Why don't 1000 and 3000 have Construction or legacy? Reywas92^Talk 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more an issue of why I chose to have a separate Construction, Background and Legacy for T2000, and not instead just merge them into History. As for Legacy, the other two don't really have one, since it mainly talks about why the T2000 was a failure and no further orders were made. The GT criteria could dictate that I merge the T2000 sections into one; I don't have a problem doing that, but as a whole I think it is best as it is. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support a bit weird of a topic but appears to comply with the requirements. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]