Talk:OS T2000/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article and I'll leave my comments here over the next day or so. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead opens with "T2000 is an electric multiple unit ...". What the heck is an "electric multiple unit? The lead needs to be just a little bit more accessible to a non-specialist reader.


 * "The aluminum body for each car is 18,000 mm (59 ft) long ...". Why are these figures (and others) given in mm instead of metres, which would seem to be more appropriate?


 * "The trains are equipped with both pantograph and third-rail shoe, and have a nominal current of 750 V DC" doesn't seem right.


 * "Although its design was found to be unsuitable, the T2000 will remain in service on the Holmenkoll Line ..." Will remain in service for ever on that line? I'd prefer to see something like "the T2000 remains in service on the Holmenkoll Line as of 2009 ...".


 * "On 22 October 1987, a fatal accident occurred when a train suffered a catastrophic failure of its braking system ...". At first, this appears to be referring to an accident involving the T2000. Only later does it become apparent that it's one of the older trains being talked about.


 * "Due to over-ordering, T1000 material had also been rebuilt and taken into use on the western network." Dont understand this at all. What has "over-ordering" got to with the rebuilds? Seems strange as well to use the word "material" here; might "rolling stock"" be better?


 * "... the new suburban stock was seen as a prototype that could replace all rolling stock on the T-bane." This description of the T2000 as a prototype is confusing. What was it a prototype of?


 * That the T2000 was not considered a successful design is mentioned several times throughout the article, but nowhere can I find any indication of why it was considered not to be successful.


 * "... an acceleration of 1.3 m/s/s". To be consistent this ought to have an imperial conversion.

That's it, I'm placing this article on hold now to allow time for these issues to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have incorporated most of the comments into the text. However:
 * I have not been able to find out what the imperial measurement for acceleration is; I have consulted the articles acceleration, US customary units, imperial units, metres per second per second and miles per hour, without finding any reference to the existence of an imperial unit for acceleration. It is also not included in the convert template. If I only knew the conversion ratio and the value, I would of course include it.
 * Concerning the 18,000 mm, I have included the values at this level of significance because this is the values stated in the source. The trains are not about 18 metres long, they are 18,000 mm long, not one mm shorter of longer. I switched the conversion unit to inches, to create a somewhat more balanced in the infobox, but I guess just keeping to metres and feet in the body text is fine. Arsenikk (talk)  16:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the imperial units (after using a book): either miles per hour per second, or feet per second per second. I chose to use the latter. Arsenikk (talk)  17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found it by checking the article on gravity. :-) I'm happy with mm -> inch conversions instead of to feet, which has been done. I'm also happy to be able to list this article as a GA now. Thanks for responding so promptly to my queries and well done on producing such a nice little article. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)