The prose is generally very good and reads well. Avoid mentioning the title of the article in the sub headers, for instance use "urban roads" instead of "congestion pricing in urban roads". There are several instances where there is an unnecessarily amount of prose; it is partially repeating itself and partially covering irrelevant areas—in particular the "old town" section needs rewrite. I would recommend a thorough copyedit where scrutiny is used to remove such things as presenting cities as capitals, and trimming down the detail level of the New York incident or the excessive amount of forward and back in the public controversy in London—the overload of statistics in the sections fails to clearly present the essence of the oppositions rationale. There seems to be a difference in the level of accuracy to the enforcement of the Manual of Style; some sections seem to not have been given the thorough copyedit expected before a GA nomination. Other issues include in-line citations not directly following punctuation (as recommended in MoS), wrongful use of boldface and several incidents of questionable capitalization. The hatnote is unnecessary long, and due to complex wording it fails to give the quick guide it is intended; at minimum rephrase and remove the New York link, and consider removing it at all. Also the second paragraph of the lead should be split in two. GA status requires that all such issues be dealt with; I recommend a thorough copyedit be performed on the entire article, and I would recommend rewriting parts of the public criticism and old-town sections altogether.
There are several subjects that seem to be commented out—with a debate to their relevance, or merely with encouragements to translate sections or to include new sections. It is clear that there are issues related to the broadness of the coverage, and I fear that as long as they persist this article cannot achieve GA status. It does however strike me that some of the commented issues have been resolved, and the comments remain as ghosts. Also see comments under section 1 on detail level.
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)[reply]
Why have the images had forced sizes? It is in violation with MoS—I have removed the size tags.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The article is in general well written and covers the topic in an accurate way. However there remain challenges with this article; I have placed it on hold for a week so the concerns can be addressed. It fails to follow the Manual of Style, and occasionally the prose drowns the essence through excessive detours. It also has unresolved issues of content, and comments claim the article is not complete, and lacks coverage of certain areas. I expect these two main issues to be dealt with, after which I will be more than happy to take another look at the article. Arsenikk(talk) 12:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 ;) EyeSerenetalk 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of dead links has now been seen to. Thanks for the second opinion. Arsenikk(talk) 11:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS): 
