Talk:Congestion pricing/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Congestion pricing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My reading of the article, and of the comments page, is that the issues raised have been reasonably well dealt with, to the extent that this is possible without losing the focus of the article. The whole issue of traffic congestion is contentious and neutral points of view are hard to find; I know I have a different point of view on congestion when I'm walking to when I'm driving a car.  Within the ambit of congestion pricing, any individual scheme needs to show that congestion is a problem, and that pricing is better than other potential solutions (including expanding road space).  Neither is true in all cases, or false in all cases.  I think the article does the best thing possible by providing details and links to individual schemes.Travelplanner (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have now performed a copyedit on the entire article. I would recommend the authors use scrutiny to make sure I have not accidentally left out something, or otherwise miswritten something. A few comments; the lead is to summarize the article, not introduce it, and should contain a little from all the sections. It should be a little longer than present, but avoid formulations in the lead that can only be understood by economists; most people do not understand terms like equilibrium price or negative externalities, and these must be explained—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all sorts of people, not a textbook for scholars. Throughout the article I have tried to remove information not related to congestion pricing, and removed a detail level (particularly to dates and secondary matters) that are not important to understand the concept. People seeking more information can always read the articles on the individual schemes.
 * On the public controversy I have rewritten it based on a per problem basis, instead of a geographic basis. Otherwise there is nothing on the criticism on "just another tax"-issue, as mentioned in the inline comment, and the text remains unclear as to the difference between the four classifications. I would have rewritten them to better explain (perhaps as a single paragraph before the four) but I fail to understand the difference from the current text. As to matter related to the WP:Manual of Style I recommend just plain reading it, and trying as good as you can to stick to it. It is not much to read, and will help make more consistent articles when editing. Arsenikk (talk)  00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mariordo being away I have done a "tidy up" edit mainly to fix some grammatical glitches which had crept in throughout the text, and to remove or explain jargon.Travelplanner (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article now meets the criteria for good article status. However, I feel that I have contributed so much through the course of the review through rewriting several of the sections, that I am asking for a second opinion on the matter to insure the integrity of the review. Arsenikk (talk)  12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I have now performed a copyedit on the entire article. I would recommend the authors use scrutiny to make sure I have not accidentally left out something, or otherwise miswritten something. A few comments; the lead is to summarize the article, not introduce it, and should contain a little from all the sections. It should be a little longer than present, but avoid formulations in the lead that can only be understood by economists; most people do not understand terms like equilibrium price or negative externalities, and these must be explained—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all sorts of people, not a textbook for scholars. Throughout the article I have tried to remove information not related to congestion pricing, and removed a detail level (particularly to dates and secondary matters) that are not important to understand the concept. People seeking more information can always read the articles on the individual schemes.
 * On the public controversy I have rewritten it based on a per problem basis, instead of a geographic basis. Otherwise there is nothing on the criticism on "just another tax"-issue, as mentioned in the inline comment, and the text remains unclear as to the difference between the four classifications. I would have rewritten them to better explain (perhaps as a single paragraph before the four) but I fail to understand the difference from the current text. As to matter related to the WP:Manual of Style I recommend just plain reading it, and trying as good as you can to stick to it. It is not much to read, and will help make more consistent articles when editing. Arsenikk (talk)  00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mariordo being away I have done a "tidy up" edit mainly to fix some grammatical glitches which had crept in throughout the text, and to remove or explain jargon.Travelplanner (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article now meets the criteria for good article status. However, I feel that I have contributed so much through the course of the review through rewriting several of the sections, that I am asking for a second opinion on the matter to insure the integrity of the review. Arsenikk (talk)  12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the article now meets the criteria for good article status. However, I feel that I have contributed so much through the course of the review through rewriting several of the sections, that I am asking for a second opinion on the matter to insure the integrity of the review. Arsenikk (talk)  12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Second opinion per request: Some of the links used to source the article appear to be dead (run this tool to check the page). Obviously this pertains to the factual accuracy criterion, so these should be re-sourced or fixed. However, once that's addressed I have no other issues with this being listed as a GA, and much thanks to Travelplanner and Arsenikk for your hard work. I think this may be a candidate for splitting into separate articles at some point if it expands further, but for now, great job all ;) EyeSerene talk 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The matter of dead links has now been seen to. Thanks for the second opinion. Arsenikk (talk)  11:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome ;) EyeSerene talk 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)