![]() | Congestion pricing was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Talon bar, I reverted again your deletion as per WP:BRD and to preserve content fully supported by reliable sources, in fact there is an entire section with the economics rationale that it seems you did not read. The lead did not have those sources because as per WP:Manual of Style if the content is fully supported by reliable sources there is no need to repeat them in the lead (they were dropped during the GA review of this article, and all sources were checked by the reviewers and accepted as reliable sources). So, if you still have an issue with that paragraph, please detail it here, but first read the first section of the article, and also I recommend you to check the articles about public goods, tragedy of the commons, Pigovian tax, and externalities (this is not a public monopoly as you claimed in your edit). The economic theory supporting congestion practice is old and well established. See also the article section about criticism. Please, do not start an edit war. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 06:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added the following text:
References
Average levels of congestion in the 2007 calendar year, measured against an uncongested travel rate of 1.8 minutes per kilometre, were identical to the representative level applying before the introduction of the scheme in 2002.
Everything is sourced down to the page. Check the references, they support everything written. כורכום ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hold on. First you reverted the edit for "misrepresenting the sources", which it doesn't, so it was a bad revert. Now it's "unrelated to causal impact". This is an arbitrary bar that none of the content on the lead currently meets or needs to meet. The long term effects of congestion pricing is important enough to be in the lead.
There are no other sources in the article that discuss the long term impact, causal or otherwise, of congestion pricing on actual congestion. I have provided three (and an additional one about the continued increase of congestion). The fact congestion pricing's long-term effects do not reduce congestion is very pertinent to the topic of the article. כורכום ( talk) 17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Congestion pricing and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
The proposed text should not be incorporated into the article as it is currently written. The sources do not support the link between rising congestion and the implementation of congestion charging zones (CCZs) implied in the proposed text, and it should be re-written in a more nuanced fashion. For example, source 1 cites roadworks as a significant contributor to congestion in London, which will clearly affect the congestion statistics within the charging zone and are not an effect of the zone itself. Furthermore, sources 1-2 both indicate reductions in the use of cars and other vehicle types, which should be noted as it demonstrates that CCZs do reduce certain types of traffic. In London this decrease has been mitigated by a rise in commercial vehicles using the CCZ, which source 1 notes is a result of economic factors and is not a fault of the CCZ per se. The most compelling argument comes from the Singapore source, which definitively states that 'traffic congestion had not been eliminated [by the introduction of the zone] -it had merely been shifted in time and location.' This should be included as an example of the negative effects of a CCZ, but care should be taken to contextualise it and more detail given. The cited page of source 4 concerns trains and seems irrelevant to the subject of the article. Overall, the text needs to recognise that congestion in major cities is a complex problem that requires a more in-depth statistical analysis than is currently given. A.D.Hope ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC) |
No causation is implied in the text. There's no misrepresentation of the sources. If you wish to provide more information from the sources you can use the rest of the article for that—in particular, the effects section is suited for this information. At any rate I'll incorporate your suggestion into the lead. כורכום ( talk) 06:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: "no consensus" doesn't mean "I don't agree so there's no consensus." There was a lengthy discussion, and the valid concerns of all parties have been addressed. Your concern, "the literature does not state such a thing", is false, as everything in the added text is quoted from literature, and both your and A.D.Hope's concerns have been addressed. If you believe something in particular about the addition is misleading, please fix it instead of reverting. כורכום ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2019 (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)
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)
Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:29, 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)
![]() | Congestion pricing was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Talon bar, I reverted again your deletion as per WP:BRD and to preserve content fully supported by reliable sources, in fact there is an entire section with the economics rationale that it seems you did not read. The lead did not have those sources because as per WP:Manual of Style if the content is fully supported by reliable sources there is no need to repeat them in the lead (they were dropped during the GA review of this article, and all sources were checked by the reviewers and accepted as reliable sources). So, if you still have an issue with that paragraph, please detail it here, but first read the first section of the article, and also I recommend you to check the articles about public goods, tragedy of the commons, Pigovian tax, and externalities (this is not a public monopoly as you claimed in your edit). The economic theory supporting congestion practice is old and well established. See also the article section about criticism. Please, do not start an edit war. Cheers.-- Mariordo ( talk) 06:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I have added the following text:
References
Average levels of congestion in the 2007 calendar year, measured against an uncongested travel rate of 1.8 minutes per kilometre, were identical to the representative level applying before the introduction of the scheme in 2002.
Everything is sourced down to the page. Check the references, they support everything written. כורכום ( talk) 16:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Hold on. First you reverted the edit for "misrepresenting the sources", which it doesn't, so it was a bad revert. Now it's "unrelated to causal impact". This is an arbitrary bar that none of the content on the lead currently meets or needs to meet. The long term effects of congestion pricing is important enough to be in the lead.
There are no other sources in the article that discuss the long term impact, causal or otherwise, of congestion pricing on actual congestion. I have provided three (and an additional one about the continued increase of congestion). The fact congestion pricing's long-term effects do not reduce congestion is very pertinent to the topic of the article. כורכום ( talk) 17:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Congestion pricing and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
The proposed text should not be incorporated into the article as it is currently written. The sources do not support the link between rising congestion and the implementation of congestion charging zones (CCZs) implied in the proposed text, and it should be re-written in a more nuanced fashion. For example, source 1 cites roadworks as a significant contributor to congestion in London, which will clearly affect the congestion statistics within the charging zone and are not an effect of the zone itself. Furthermore, sources 1-2 both indicate reductions in the use of cars and other vehicle types, which should be noted as it demonstrates that CCZs do reduce certain types of traffic. In London this decrease has been mitigated by a rise in commercial vehicles using the CCZ, which source 1 notes is a result of economic factors and is not a fault of the CCZ per se. The most compelling argument comes from the Singapore source, which definitively states that 'traffic congestion had not been eliminated [by the introduction of the zone] -it had merely been shifted in time and location.' This should be included as an example of the negative effects of a CCZ, but care should be taken to contextualise it and more detail given. The cited page of source 4 concerns trains and seems irrelevant to the subject of the article. Overall, the text needs to recognise that congestion in major cities is a complex problem that requires a more in-depth statistical analysis than is currently given. A.D.Hope ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC) |
No causation is implied in the text. There's no misrepresentation of the sources. If you wish to provide more information from the sources you can use the rest of the article for that—in particular, the effects section is suited for this information. At any rate I'll incorporate your suggestion into the lead. כורכום ( talk) 06:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Snooganssnoogans: "no consensus" doesn't mean "I don't agree so there's no consensus." There was a lengthy discussion, and the valid concerns of all parties have been addressed. Your concern, "the literature does not state such a thing", is false, as everything in the added text is quoted from literature, and both your and A.D.Hope's concerns have been addressed. If you believe something in particular about the addition is misleading, please fix it instead of reverting. כורכום ( talk) 18:19, 9 July 2019 (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)
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)
Mariordo Thanks for your improvements so far - are you (or anyone else of course such as Snooganssnoogans Sdkb) intending to improve this article further in the next few days? Chidgk1 ( talk) 12:29, 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)