Jump to content

Talk:Edinburgh congestion charge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeEdinburgh congestion charge was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 16, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Move / Expansion

[edit]

I am planning on a major expansion of this article to include background, arguments, details of the plans etc. I think the page should be moved to Edinburgh road tolls or Edinburgh congestion charge, but would like to see if there are any objections before starting. Regan123 (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objections - just a note: as there are articles on the London Congestion Charge & Manchester Congestion Charge the latter name would be consistent.Pyrotec 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Will move it there. I'm in the middle of expanding it now. If you could have a look at it later as I am a few hundred miles away and am relying on news sources to check that I've got things right and haven't missed anything I would appreciate it. Regan123 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Article moved and expanded. I think this might be at a B now, but would appreciate other comments. It also probably needs a copy edit. The major source for info was the Edinburgh Evening News which was very anti by the looks of it. I have tried to neutralise that from the article, but searching online made it very difficult to find pro toll sources. Maybe it was that unpopular, but I'm sure there must be something. Again, a second opinion on this would be welcomed. Regan123 02:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

Mainly, this article needs some prose work, both for flow and reworking of awkward sentences.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Mostly prose, but a few words and phrases need to be spelled consistently also.Lede needs some serious expansion to summarize the article
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    A couple of places could use a citation
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Details:

  • Lede is too short for an article of this length. WP:LEDE recommends three or four paragraphs, three would probably be sufficient.
  • A number of paragraphs in the article are very short (one or two paragraphs) and this gives the prose a very choppy feel when you read it. Consider consolidating and/or expanding them to eliminate this.
  • Background section, fourth paragraph. the sentence starting "Minor traffic management changes..." is a run on. Consider rewording/breaking up to make it clearer.
  • I'm unsure if the "In summary sentence" is really needed. If used, it should be merged into something else and I'd really like to see some sort of citation for it, as it sets out the situation for the Council and by implication gives the Council motives for the proposal of the charge.
  • UK is linked the first time, but it should be spelled out when first used.
  • Proposals section, the use of a list for the three options isn't really needed. Three items are easy to integrate into prose.
  • Times of day. In one place 7am to 7pm is used, another the 24 hour clock. Pick one and be consistent.
  • the 0700-1000 and 1600 to 1830 needs to be consistent. Either n-dash both or use to beteween both, right now it is jarring.
  • Proposals section.... "A consultation was sent.." Is that used in Scotland? In the US we'd say "A survey was sent..."
  • Proposal section, sixth paragraph. Enquiry or inquiry? Settle on one spelling, as the fact that they are both used in this paragraph is jarring.
  • Scottish executive? Explain or wikilink for this poor Yank.
  • Consider condensing and making into a prose sentence the last list in the Proposals section.
  • Reaction section, the first paragraph. First sentence is odd. I think you mean that there was both support and opposition, but the wording is unclear. Consider rewording, perhaps to "When the initial consultation went out, the proposed congestion charge scheme garnered both support and opposition."
  • Link Transport Scotland?
  • Same section and paragraph. The wording of "Fife Council announced a report into the impact onto their area..." is awkward and unclear. Did they announce that they were going to fund a report or did they announce the results of a report?
  • Same section, second paragraph, fourth sentence. I think you mean 'bye-election" or "by-election", in other words the elections that happen in off years that aren't in the big election years, correct? I think it is hyphenated, but double check. The way this is worded it is awkward, perhaps "lost seats in a by election held in September 2002 with participants.."
  • Same section and paragraph, fifth sentence. Wouldn't it be the councilmen representing the parties that opposed the plans? And the next sentence is lacking context with the preceding sentence, the flow is bad from the previous sentence to that one.
  • I'd like to see a bit better context given for some of the linked terms. It's annoying to have to click over to another article to figure out what a Court of Seession or the Scottish Borders Council is. Consider giving a quick and dirty explanation to at least give non-Scots readers an idea of what these things are and why their opposition was important.
  • Same section, fourth paragraph, the first sentence is awkward. I believe you mean that Begg cited the reporting of the succcess, but it's not entirely clear what is going on in the sentence. I think you mean to say "cited success of the introduction of the London congestion charge as a reason to go ahead ..."
  • Try saying "Another group, Edinburgh Communities Against Congestion Charging, was set up to oppose the charge and to lobby for a no vote in the referendum." This flows better with the preceding sentence.
  • Same section, last paragraph. The sentence starting "Concern was expressed on rat runs.." is awkward. Consider rewording
  • Same section and paragraph. Is it Midlothian or Mid Lothian? Make it consistent in the article.
  • Referendum section, too many short stubby paragraphs make the prose flow very badly. And I'm not sure why it is important to cite the cost of the referendum, was it way out of line for the normal cost of these things? If it wasn't out of line, it's a redundant detail unless folks complained about it, in which case that needs to be mentioned.
  • Aftermath section. More stubby paragraphs. Consider merging or expanding them.
  • Same section. Work the list into prose form, and give the reasons a citation.

There are significant prose issues, mainly with awkward sentences, short paragraphs giving a choppy feel to the prose, and lack of context on some things for non-Scots readers. A few minor consistency issues also need to be addressed.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of response, I've taken the liberty of closing this nomination. Ealdgyth is welcome to reopen the hold if this was done prematurely.--jwandersTalk 16:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Edinburgh congestion charge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Edinburgh congestion charge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edinburgh_congestion_charge&oldid=1227490616"