Wikipedia:Featured article review/London congestion charge/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:21, 12 January 2013 [1].

London congestion charge[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

London congestion charge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Regan123, WikiProject UK Roads, WikiProject Urban studies and planning, WikiProject London Transport, WikiProject London

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous issues:

  1. Several sentences lacking sources.
  2. Numerous short (one sentence, even) paragraphs
  3. Numerous short (one paragraph, even) sections
  4. Too many sections
  5. The Preparing for the Western Extension section looks a lot like WP:PROSELINE
  6. Numerous dead links
  7. Lead is too short (per WP:LEADLENGTH this should have three to four paragraphs)

These are only general comments, from a very brief look at the article. This currently fails FA criteria 1a, 1c, 2a, and 2b. Further investigation may reveal more problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this was a FA, was demoted, and then repromoted. I'd have to agree the organization is a bit funky. --Rschen7754 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, just so no one else wastes the 10 minutes I did trying to figure out why there is only listed above one FAC and three FARs for a re-promoted article, the first FA was from the Refreshing Brilliant Prose era (apparently Maralia and I didn't reconstruct that page from diffs when I was building article histories, as I did on some others) and the excess FAR is a link back to the archive# system when we enacted it. In other words, it looks wrong but all the pieces are in article milestones). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crisco's comments, and also have the following comments on the basis of a skim read:

  • The lead doesn't discuss how the scheme has performed
  • While the overall quality of the prose isn't outright bad (and is pretty good in the first parts of the 'history' section), it could do with a fair bit of polish.
  • "TfL can and does suspend the congestion charge either in a small local area to cope with incidents and if directed to do so by a police officer." - this is pretty vague (I presume that individual police officers can't decide to suspend the charge as this states if read literally, but requests to do so are made through the police chain of command)
  • The single-sentence para which starts with "Entry authorisation and penalties cannot be issued to non-UK numberplates" is hard to follow (and unreferenced) and should be merged into a full para
  • "the results of the consultation on the Western Extension were published which showed that a substantial majority of respondents did not want the extension" - who these respondents were should be identified
  • The 'Preparing for the Western Extension' section seems to have a bit of an axe to grind against the extension, and is something of a mess with lots of stubby paragraphs
  • The article has a fair amount of over-linking
  • The financial figures in the 'Income and costs' section are four or five years out of date
  • While it's not a huge deal, I think that the 'history' section should come before the 'Present scheme' section Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too agree with Crisco's comments. Even a brief read reveals multiple serious problems with the prose. It certainly fails on 1a, and there may be other problems as well. Rewrite or delist. --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the FAR instructions; declarations to Delist or Keep are not entered in the FAR phase, rather the FARC phase, so please be sure to revisit if the nomination moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, one month, almost no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above and lack of effort at saving the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, move to FARC, whatever is the next step at getting this article demoted. --Rschen7754 01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, pls see the instructions. Keep or Delist are declared if/when the article moves to Featured Article Removal Candidates (FARC) phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, style and organization, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist stale. --Rschen7754 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above and lack of effort at saving the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist -mainly due to lack of work on improving article - choppy paras and small lead stand out on first inspection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per the above Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/London_congestion_charge/archive2&oldid=1078811496"