Talk:London congestion charge/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this a go, I know the area and the history reasonably well.

I've had a quick look through the article and noticed a few problems. Some paragraphs are unsourced and there is one tag. These will need to be fixed. The prose seems to be over detailed in places and comes across as waffling. I see this was delisted as an FA a few years ago - have you looked at the comments there? Although the GA criteria is not as strenuous as FA, the comments, particularly those that suggest improvement, are well worth listening to.

Specific comments will follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

On with the review.....

Lead

 * "is a fee charged" could link to Congestion pricing
 * Is CCZ an actual acronym used? I don't recognise it. ✅ Added reference for it
 * "Central London" is usually (according to signs) in upper case ✅ Fixed it
 * "public holidays" could link to public holidays in the United Kingdom ✅ Linked to it
 * "between 07:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday" - this claim in the lead doesn't appear to be in the body
 * The source in the first paragraph is a dead link ✅ Fixed it
 * "The charge, which was introduced on 17 February 2003, remains..." - might be simpler to say "It was introduced in February 2003 and remains..." ✅ Changed it
 * "The charge aims to reduce congestion," - the reader can probably guess that! Might be worth just saying what the problem is, high traffic flow, queues at key points etc
 * "The standard charge is £11.50 for each day" - to avoid dating, it would be worth qualifying this with a date
 * " £2.6 billion through December 2013" - suggest "though to December 2013"

Comments on the body to follow Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have fixed all the dead urls except 2 (ref23 and 87). :) The rest I will edit when I have time. Ya, I also noticed about the "between......to Friday" sentence. Where should I include it in your opinion?Vincent60030 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Present scheme

 * "which forms the A501, A1202, A1210/A1211, A100, A201, A202, A302, A3204, A4202 and parts of the A5" - I don't think that means much to the layman reader. The map to left explains the layout of the inner ring road, and a description of streets a few paragraphs later (which are notable!) is a better fit. ✅ Removed it
 * "the major roads defining the boundary were" - are they still not there as of now? ✅ Fixed it
 * "Signs were erected and symbols painted on the road to help drivers recognise the congestion charge area" - the source for this returns 403 : Forbidden ✅ Fixed it
 * "The Western Extension, introduced in February 2007, was removed by major Boris Johnson beginning on 4 January 2011" - this fact seems better suited for the "History" section. Instead, just a brief overview of where the Western Extension was would be better ✅ Added and fixed typo "major" to "mayor"

Charges

 * This section seems strange to start with "In January 2013 Transport for London opened a public consultation..." which sounds like a history fact. I think it would be better to just state what the charges are now and leave it at that. Dartford Crossing might give you some ideas.
 * "The consultation process run from January 2014 to March 2014" - grammar, should be "ran"
 * "Since 16 June 2014 the following charges applied:" - better to say "As of" instead of "since" and "applied" should be "apply", assuming the charges are still valid ✅ Changed it
 * "Residents living within or very close to the zone " - can we qualify this with exactly what "very close" means? The source given doesn't seem to say anything about resident discount zones (at least not directly)
 * What makes www.goultralow.com a reliable source?
 * Boris Johnson should be wikilinked (first mention, assuming the copyedit in the above "Present scheme" section is adhered to ✅ Linked it

Suspensions, Avoidance and Evasion

 * The first two citations in this section are dead links, and tagged as such ✅ Fixed it
 * "if the registered keeper of the vehicle cannot be traced, is deceased, or bankrupt" - the link for this is dead ✅ Fixed it
 * This section has one paragraph that is completely unsourced

Payment by embassies

 * "In May 2011 the Mayor, Boris Johnson," - per WP:LASTNAME just say "Johnson" here. We don't need to repeat that Boris Johnson is the Mayor of London time and time again

History

 * As a general point, there seems to be far too many mentions of "Boris Johnson". As a rule, mention (and link) Boris Johnson the first time in the article, then use "Johnson" thereafter

Background

 * The source "Bannister, David (2002). Transport Planning" needs more information, ISBN (a book from 2002 should have one) and page number(s)
 * "Only a small section of these road schemes had been implemented" - normally I'd say "what makes www.cbrd.co.uk a reliable source" but I happen to know Chris Marshall and I believe he knows more about the London Ringways than anyone else still alive (I've seen the plans of how much of South London was getting bulldozed), so I'll let you off
 * What makes thecarandtheelephant.com a reliable source?

Planning and preparation

 * "benefit from a congestion charge scheme," - I think you want to start a new sentence here
 * "Indeed Ken Livingstone, then Mayor of London and key proponent of the charge, himself predicted a "difficult few days" - the source given seems to be dead ✅ Fixed it
 * "an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced" - the source given cites the 300 extra buses, but not the total 8,000

2004 election campaign

 * "the rest (western portion) of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea" - the link this is cited to is dead

Preparing for the Western Extension

 * The whole of this section seems to be suffering from recentism where the original text was layed out (probably in about 2003-2004) and these bits have been added piecemeal to it without any overall review. In general, any section that says "In August 2004.... in October 20004 ... By November 2004 .... in May 2005 .... in June 2005 ...." etc etc is now, in 2015, going to be overlong and out of date
 * "the polls were a "charade" which did not diminish his electoral mandate. "A consultation is not a referendum" he said" - cited to a dead link
 * "The rise to £8 was announced formally on 1 April 2005, along with discounts for drivers buying month or year-long tickets" - the TfL press release is a dead link

Effects

 * "Once within the charging zone car ...." - this paragraph is unsourced

Air quality

 * This section has a tag

Public transport

 * "On the launch date of the original zone, an extra 300 buses (out of a total of around 8,000) were introduced" - this has already been mentioned earlier in the article (same problem with 8,000 buses not being verifiable)

Summary

 * I think I'm going to stop there, as I'm afraid it doesn't look like this is going to reach Good Article status in the short term. There are small problems with wording and a few questionable or missing sources, but the real problem is the recentism that's been active since 2004-5 with editors adding piecemeal bits here and there. Those areas need a serious copyedit and trim down to form a coherent narrative - without that the article just can't meet the "focused" part of the GA criteria, I'm afraid.


 * I think one of the principal problems is you haven't edited the article much - you're not even in the list of top editors. As a general rule of thumb, a successful GA will usually be nominated by somebody who has spent substantial work and edits improving the article first. For a future review, I'd get and  involved, and work through the article as a team. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not very good at this part but may I work as a team too? Vincent60030 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)