Talk:Milan Area C
{{GA|page=1|subtopic=Transport|14:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)|oldid=1011003405}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|1=
{{WikiProject Urban studies and planning|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Transport|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Italy|importance=mid}}
}}
{{DYK talk|2 March|2012|entry=... that there has been a 33% decrease in cars entering Milan's city center since the Area C congestion charge was introduced?}}
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)
:{{ping|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)
{{Talk:Milan Area C/GA1}}