Talk:Milan Area C

I'd like to question the bibliography of this page: it's composed of 23 items, 6 of which are from the Comune di Milano (the public administration that imposed AreaC and therefore is not neutral in evaluating it), 9 are from Corriere della Sera (a newspaper publicly defending AreaC), 2 from Repubblica (another newspaper explicitly advocating the current mayor), 1 from a biased blog (Sostenibile), 1 (Martino) that when examined does not cite any verifiable data (e.g. traffic or pollution), 1 from another newspaper (NY Sun), 3 from BBC and Reuters (again, news agencies), but AFAIK no real scientific sources... Atrent42 (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Corriere della Sera and Repubblica are the two most important newspapers in Italy. Comune di Milano provides the official data about entrances etc. I don't see why you think they are biased references. Anyway, feel free to improve the article. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I will, newspapers in general are not so neutral nor scientific sources of information, and the "official" data from Comune di Milano is not "third party" verifiable, actually Comune di Milano does not even publish detailed opendata about traffic (I've searched http://dati.comune.milano.it) Atrent42 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is an article (I'm the author so I'm not inserting it into the page, you'll judge) debating AreaC claims: http://www.je-lks.org/ojs/index.php/Je-LKS_EN/article/view/919 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrent42 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion - add more on Area B and consider retitling

As Area B seems such a closely related subject how about adding more on that and retitling the article - for example to "Milan low emission and congestion charge zones" Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: thank you for the suggestion and the article improvements. It is a good idea. However, the article is nominated for GA review right now, I am not sure if it's a good idea to make such a big change now? --Ita140188 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It could be quite a while before anyone reviews it. So if there are plenty of sources for Milan area B and you have time you could add some more info. Then, depending on what the reviewer advises, you could decide whether to retitle this article or split Area B off into a new stub. Personally I think they should be in the same article as I guess there must be a lot of commonalities/synergy between the zones. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Milan Area C/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• " Area C was" -> "It was..."

 Done

• My personal aim, and a good check -> no references in the lead. That way you guarantee that everything you mention there has to be in the main body of the article and referenced there too.

 Done

• I also think the lead could include some of the criticism/praise for it, and suspension because of Covid etc.

I added some information, not sure if enough. In case I can add more. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Area C gate in Porta Ticinese" why is Area C in italics in this caption?

 Done removed italics

• The Background section could use an "as of" because of the time-sensitive nature of the data.

 Done

• "among large European cities" what's the definition of "large"?

This just reports the study and the article discussing it. I am not sure if we should specify the exact methodology. In any case, I tried to make the information clearer. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• " Area C was introduced on 16 January 2012," vs "Area C was definitively approved as a permanent program on 27 March 2013" when did it actually start/enter law? Is it that the 16 January date was the start of the "18-month pilot program" and permanent approval came along before the 18 months was up?

 Done This was clarified --Ita140188 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Could link Walls of Milan for Cerchia dei Bastioni?

 Done created a redirect from Cerchia dei Bastioni and linked --Ita140188 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "The ZTL encompasses" why is ZTL italicised?

 Done removed italics

• "The area is accessible through 43 gates, monitored by video cameras." unreferenced.

 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Put non-breaking spaces between times and am/pm.

 Done

• "after protests by parking owners" do you mean the owners of car parking facilties?

 Done yes, clarified --Ita140188 (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• " the entrance in the area is free from 6 pm on Thursday" you mentioned this free period above already.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 07:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Table of charges needs row and col scopes for accessibility.

 Done Fixed. Not sure if it is enough? --Ita140188 (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "with over 9 seats" -> with more than nine seats.

 Done

• "30% in the ZTL" why is ZTL in italics here?

 Done removed italics --Ita140188 (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• ""Data from Comune di Milano" needs a full stop as it's following other complete sentences.

 Done

• "(8-9 am)" en-dash, not hyphen, and non-breaking space.

 Done

• "about 7%[24]:8 " full stop missing.

 Done

• Was it "decreasing trend in traffic" or a "trend in decreasing traffic"?

 Done

• " In the first 6 months " six.

 Done

• " pollution reductions alone is $3 billion.[3" non-breaking space between 3 and billion. And what's the scope of this saving, just Milan? And why in $?

 Done clarified the findings from the source. The gains are reported in $ by the source. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Covid-19 pandemic is overlinked.

 Done by other editor

• " 10 am instead of 7:30" missing am

 Done by other editor

• In "revenues" section, sustainable mobility and public transport are overlinked.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• "came in for a lot of criticism" -> "has been highly criticised"

 Done

• Merge the single-sentence para.

 Done

• Council of State is overlinked.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• For ref authors, either last name, first name or first last, but be consistent.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• No spaced hyphens in the refs, spaced en-dashes instead per MOS please.

Not sure what do you mean? --Ita140188 (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. On hold, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Ita140188 looking very good now. A couple of things:

• I fixed the hyphens issue in this edit

Thanks!

• Non-English references need to use the language=Italian parameter.

 Done

• I checked most of the "publishers" some of them were works i.e. newspapers, and changed the parameter from publisher to work. Can you re-check?

Rechecked, should be ok now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise we're almost there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Ita140188 nice work, I'm happy that it passes GA standards. Well done. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for the review! --Ita140188 (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)