Talk:European emission standards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

European emission standards was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 17, 2007

Portal	This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

under construction this week. Jens Nielsen 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

TO DO
translate sample dieselnet tables with http://diberri.dyndns.org/html2wiki.html
Add sections:
*Standards applying for cars
*Standards applying for lorries
*Standards applying for nonroad vehicles
*effectiveness (illustrating problems with cycle beating, slow penetration of new vehicles in whole fleet

Contents 1 MC standards 2 Failed "good article" nomination 3 Hypocritical Classifications 4 Debatepedia external link

[edit] MC standards

Any info on the motorcycle/moped standarnds would be great. 213.28.235.4 07:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RE "the European Commission announced that it was working on a proposal for a new law to limit CO2 emissions from cars [3]"

I do not believe that this statement is verifiable by the sources cited - can this be clarified?

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The layout is not very good. The article contains too many tables. It should comply with Wikipedia:Embedded_list. My advice is to move all tables into separate stub-like articles leaving only prose here. The "See also" section is also too long. It contains links to wiki pages that are already wikilinked in the text, and it should be shortened. The "In the media" subsection should be removed or merged with "External links" section. My general impression is that the layout of the article should be thought through carefully and then revised.

2. Factually accurate?: The list of references is in a bad shape. It's better to use templates instead of demonstrating long web links. The last two references are in the form of [1], which is not good either.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: OK

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Ruslik 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

False data in table "Europ. emission standard for passeng. cars..." ? The dates listed in that table (the new type approval dates) differ up to three years from the very similar table in the German Wiki-version of the same article. This data needs checking!

[edit] Hypocritical Classifications

I am sure enough of the data here to put this on the main page but I didn't feel comfortable doing so as it is my opinion that this is a problem and other may disagree on that, this is the only issue, the facts are straightforward. The issue is well documented and can be seen through a simple comparison of the latest data from the UK site VCA: http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/may2007.asp and the emission standards information on this page. If you check any 4x4 SUV type vehicle you will find that almost invariably they do not conform to the Euro standard for passenger vehicles, and yet they are on the list as (in most cases) conforming to the latest standard (IV). Carefully checking each one led me to the conclusion that these vehicles are being classified as "light commercial vehicles". The standard defines commercial vehicles as “vehicle designed and equipped for the transportation of goods”. This is absurd to me as an SUV is just a passenger vehicle. The whole point of emissions standards like this is to make people think twice about drive cars that emit a lot of pollution. How is this to be achieved when the worst polluters of all get exempted from the standard by a stupid loophole. The best example is the Mercedes GL class which is actually just a station wagon with slightly raised suspension. The emissions for this vehicle are PM=0.034 HC+NOx = 0.27-0.36 NOx = 0.26-0.35. Does this mean if I buy a station wagon in Europe and fit slightly higher aftermarket suspension that means it is now designed and equipped for transporting goods? We are letting people drive giant gas guzzling tanks spewing out poisonous gases while taxing or fining people who are using less gas and making less pollution just because they dont have an ungainly ride height and an ugly pug-nosed lack of aerodynamics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drunkenduncan (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Debatepedia external link

Would a link to Debatepedia's article on the debate between a carbon tax and cap-and-trade be acceptable here on this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.198.98.193 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The link fails our external links guidelines being to a relatively new and lightly edited wiki. -- SiobhanHansa 02:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)