Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Congestion pricing/1

Congestion pricing

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Congestion_pricing/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: delisted (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was listed good a long time ago. The lead mentions things other than transport but the body text is almost all about transport. For example the lead mentions electricity but there is nothing about charging more for electricity transmission when a line is in demand a lot. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to cover the environmental and health impact at greater length. The research is clear: congestion pricing reduces pollution, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and has health benefits. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a little skeptical of "advocates claim" in the second sentence of the lead. Is the research strong enough to just state that in wikivoice? This is an important topic, and it'd be nice to save it from delisting., have you noticed other problems, or just that the lead doesn't align with the body? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Scope of this article compared other articles e.g. Electricity pricing - see e.g. https://learn.pjm.com/three-priorities/buying-and-selling-energy/lmp Too much detail on the London ULEZ but some general explanation of relationship with LEZ would be interesting e.g. why US has road congestion pricing but no LEZ as far as I know. And will the balance change as EV proportion continues to increase rapidly in Europe? Bibliography needs trimming and updating. I may find more problems later. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

OK so we agree it needs work to stay good so the question now is whether anyone is willing to do much work on it. I am not but I will leave this open for a while and if no one volunteers put an appeal in the most relevant project before delisting. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I oposed the delisting. The topic is still up to date, no much progress has occurred worldwide since it gained GA. Details about the London congestion charge should go in that article, not here. The summary about London is due to more studies and evaluations available, and because it is the onle big city in the world with such scheme, therefore, it is a global reference.--Mariordo (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have an opinion about the scope of the article? I mean whether it should include things other than transport? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the article explains in its description section (supported by the corresponding reliable sources, mainly economic literature), congestion pricing could be applied in several public services, but in practice it is mainly use in transportation services, such as road pricing (most common application) and other transportation modes (such as the scheme in the Panama Canal). In other sectors similar concepts has been applied, but slightly modified because of the different nature of the service (for example, electricity requires distribution, transport does not. Final users of water and energy services pay a monthly fee according to use, road users don't pay out-of-pocket fees for use of the road network, except some toll roadas), and are called by different names, such as variable pricing, water pricing, and electricity pricing.--Mariordo (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you the scope should be wide as explained in the lede. But the body does not have enough on non-transport e.g. electricity has moved on since the article was first written Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as ) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On scope, I think that we ought to restrain it to "congestion pricing" in transport, i.e. traffic congestion pricing. This is for several reasons:
 * It allows us to proceed without having to cut or add much to this article, increasing the likelihood we can save it.
 * The broader concept of congestion pricing is already covered in dynamic pricing and variable pricing.
 * The non-transport uses of congestion pricing are often called different things and have different qualities, so it makes sense to discuss them separately.
 * Articles with too big a scope tend to become unwieldy.
 * I've added a hatnote attempting to clarify this. I hope that helps with scope, but the very fact we're having to discuss it here rather than it being something the original author made clear is a failing of the article (the 2008 version included transportation network in the first sentence definition but then included public utility in the next sentence), and is something that could portend other quality issues. I haven't looked into those, so I can't comment on that yet. I will note, though, that this topic has changed a ton since 2008, so if it hasn't been actively updated, it's likely no longer up to standard. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is delist. But note that this is a community assessment so an uninvolved editor will eventually need to close the discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delist, unsourced portions here and there (2), most of the article seems a list rather than general coverage of the topic (3b), and has a separate large WP:CRITICISM section (4). Other concerns mentioned above also seem plausible, although I have no preference as to what exactly the final scope might be at the moment. CMD (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)