Wikipedia:Featured article review/London congestion charge/archive1

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 13:12, 31 March 2007.

London congestion charge

Review commentary

Messages left at Business and Economics, Taxation, and London. Gzkn 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of problems with this brilliant prose promotion. It is under-cited, featuring a variety of uncited weasel phrases ("some opponents", "it is said", "it has been pointed out that", "it has been estimated that", etc.). Many statistics go uncited. The lead is inadequate, and the prose needs some major cleanup ("Many toll roads and bridges exist in England, both now and in the past", "Due to the wide spread around the globe of sub-contractors and because some data protection regulations vary from country to country", "If you do not pay, your vehicle registration number is recorded via a tag-and-beacon system and you are sent a letter asking to pay the charge"). The article also needs a general restructuring. It's patchy, rambling, and it jumps from one topic to the next; the "Unusual aspects" section needs to be gutted. The article could benefit from a complete rewrite. Gzkn 02:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the references need to be the same type and should go after the punctuation per WP:FOOT. Needs a copyedit. Fix the banner issue and resolve all the citation needed remarks. Morphh ^(talk) 03:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lots of uncited hard data; external jumps; references are not completely formatted, including publisher, last access date, author etc. WP:LEAD is inadequate, ending in "see below" !!!SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), weasel words (1d), LEAD (2a), prose (1a), focus (4). Marskell 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per 1c and 1d. Some quoted figures aren't cited in the article, and the article uses adjectives unnecessarily in parts. LuciferMorgan 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, stubby prose, numerous MOS issues, uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 25 March 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.