Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

London congestion charge[edit]

First Featured Article Candidate - previous FAC
First Featured Article Review - FAR
Former featured article; has been on main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check external links

Nominated: I am nominating this article on which several editors have worked on recently to bring it back up to FA standard. I believe it is comprehensive, well written and fully referenced. Regan123 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm counting 3 dead links. The Lead needs to kick off with the significance rather than price and time details. But, on first read I like it.--Doc^g 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks for the comment. Can't do anything about the red links at the moment - is this part of the FA criteria? What we have done is explain briefly what they mean where an article doesn't yet exist. Regan123 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Doc was referring to dead links, not red links, as here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK. Doing... Regan123 (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)~~

Done All links fixed. --Regan123 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems also generally good to refernce the lead. Simply south (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that there is anything particularly requiring a reference in the lead that isn't ref'd in the main article. What are thinking is controversial in there that requires a reference? Regan123 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a suggestion after seeing many FAs. It is sometimes seen that if the lead is not referenced that the article is not reffed enough but then there are many FAs without references at the start. Simply south (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been beaten to death at WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section. There is no absolute requirement for citations in the lead, except in some exceptional circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, though I'd like to see something done about the "failing to meet predictions" line - either cited or removed. Will ^(talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Regan123 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, then. Will ^(talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regan123 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it mentions changes after 18 February 2007... can we get a map of that? gren グレン 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the creator of the original map if it would be possible for them to do this. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support some good recent work to source the figures and so on. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets FAC IMHO. Nice work as of late. Good job. Rudget . 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support—on the understanding that the overlinking will be addressed (MOS breach): words such as "Christmas", "buses", "taxis", "police officer", "public transport"—why not link every single word in the article? We do speak English, and don't want the high-value links diluted by ugly splotches of blue. Tony (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've delinked Christmas as I can see that one, but as these are specifically excluded vehicles, I would suggest that those links should remain as they are defined things within the regulations around the scheme. I know we've been keen to keep the links down to one for each item. Certainly if it is a deal breaker, then they will go, but I just want to be sure it is vital - I feel they are of some worth. Regan123 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links work on the basis of someone reading one article sees a reference to something and think "hey, it would be useful for me to know more about that" - thus links to bog standard items are always superflous. If the link were to Buses in London or or Metropolitan Police Service, that would be fine - but a link to bus or taxi or any generic item not specific the the topic should be removed.--Doc^g 12:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK. I'll see if there is a specific link otherwise I will remove them. Thanks for the feedback, Regan123 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)~~ I've removed some general links and changed the piped link for others. Is there anything else you can see? Regan123 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Regan123 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support Good article, generally well written and covering a complicated topic thoroughly:

Suggest that the redlinks should be taken out until there's something on the other end.
It definitely needs a map showing the original zone and the expanded zone.
The first sentences of the Income and costs section could use some work as they are confusing. The sentence in the bracket seems to be trying to provide too much information in one hit and does not seem to offer any figures that may actually be compared usefully with the net income - what is the net income for TfL from other sources?
Some comment on the implications of the 30-year bond issue on TfL's future finances might be interesting, for example:
- What happens if the charge income is too low to service the interest?
- What happens if the charge is abolished?

--DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.