Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 kept by Dana boomer 17:54, 14 December 2010 [1].

Pulaski Skyway edit

Review commentary edit

Pulaski Skyway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Notified: WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article was promoted to FA-class well over 5 years ago, and standards have changed since then, especially in the Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Examples sections needed to be brought up to present standards include the route description, the image gallery, and the overall article coverage in general. Sections of the article are also outdated, with no recent news about the highway listed (including current construction, maintainence projects, etc). Also seems to be missing a decent amount of general history content. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Reference formatting
    • Date formatting in the references is not consistent.
    • Overlinking. The New York Times need only be linked in the first footnote that uses it.
    • Some footnotes use The New York Times and others are just New York Times. Pick one and stick to it, and make sure that it is always italicized.
    • This is more of a query, but if someone can verify that the NYT articles don't have credited bylines for the reporters that wrote them. If they have bylines, the names should be added to the citations.
    • It would be nice to have a location for the the Hart book. The short references to it should have terminal periods on the page numbers.
    • Ref 7 lists the author there as "First Last", not "Last, First". If Condit is being quoted by Hart, why can't we dig up that source and quote Condit directly?
    • Can we either replace ref 10, or reformat the citation better?
    • Ref 1012 is from a WP:SPS. If it's really to a citation to a piece of legislation, there should be a better source that lists the actual text of the law, and with a complete citation. (One has to assume now that it was a law written and passed by New Jersey's legislature, but the citation given in the article doesn't specify.
    • Refs 21 and 22 should be reformatted to match the formatting of the other citations better.
    • In Ref 51, the location should be added to The Record since a location is not in the name of the paper. Additionally, the article title should be rendered in Title Case, not Sentence case, following the capitalization rules for Title Case.
  • There are some junction list consistency issues.
    • The Hackensack River entry probably shouldn't span both the county and location columns. Normally rivers only span both columns when they form the boundary. I would move that river entry to just the location column and let Hudson County span the 5 rows are are properly inside the county. (I'm assuming that the Passaic River is the boundary here, so it should span both columns.
    • Both bridge entries probably should have their mileage given as a range and not a point. Points are great for the center of an interchange, but ranges are better for bigger interchanges or bridges. In this case, the two values for each bridge should be the two ends, unless they're so short
    • The list should probably be moved to its own section, which is the project-level guidance from WP:USRD and WP:HWY.
  • Honestly, this article is a bit of a hybrid here. It's not really a pure highway article, but it's not a pure bridge article.
  • I'm wondering if we can't prune the photos a bit, particularly the gallery in the middle. Maybe remove a few to the Commons gallery and enlarge the remainder from that gallery
  • The hatnote probably needs to be updated. If I'm not mistaken, the other Pulaski Skyway in Boston was demolished as a part of the Big Dig.
  • The infobox has metric measurements listed first, but the article text has Imperial measurements first. That should be fixed.
  • Highway names are given in full in the lead, but abbreviated elsewhere, without the abbreviations specified anywhere.

Just some thoughts for now. Imzadi 1979 → 10:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Sigvald Johannesson as the designer of the bridge. I found several references which give hime credit. ([2]) The paragraph about the type of the bridge is very confusing and is likely innacurate. The shorter spans of the viaduct are said the current version to be "deck truss cantilever bridges." I doubt this is the case. Short spans like that are not typically cantilever construction. The two river crossings are cantilever construction, and there are numerous references which document that, including the HAER (see the external links). The language about the span lengths is confusing. I am an engineer and I don't get it. Reliable engineering references should be used for this information. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to have been any changes made to the paragraph on the design of the bridge. My engineering intuition says that the river crossings are cantilever trusses and the rest of the bridge is simple spans. The current text is confusing and poorly sourced as to what bridge types are used on the skyway. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an engineer, so any assistance you can provide in updating that section would be appreciated. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  1. The lead does not provide an adequate summary of the article.
  2. There are a few unreferenced statements throughout the article such as "Longtime local residents believe it is the Pulaski Skyway that is referenced in Woody Guthrie's famous anthem This Land Is Your Land, in the line "I saw above me that endless Skyway."", "but tolls were never added.", and "US 1/9 was moved from the old Lincoln Highway (which soon became US 1/9 Truck) to the skyway when it was completed."
  3. A separate bibliography section is needed for "The Last Three Miles" book reference.
  4. The photo gallery in the article needs to be removed per WP:IG.
  5. The sentence "The exits (and corresponding entrances) are:" needs to be completed.
  6. Several references need to be properly formatted. Dough4872 01:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, comprehensiveness, updatedness, lead, formatting YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Hold I'am seeing the article is progressing. There's ongoing dispute on this article. JJ98 (Talk) 02:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no longer editing much, so don't count on me to fix all the nitpicks above (amid a few reasonable points). The article actually had a complete rewrite in 2007, if I remember correctly: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1. The edit war over the extent is bloody stupid; it clearly goes from Raymond to Tonnele and does not include the Route 139 "covered roadway" that predates it. But if it's going to have blatant BS I say delist. --NE2 09:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for FA criteria concerns. JJ98 (Talk) 07:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—prose is ordinary, but OK. I fixed some overlinking and the "today" glitch in the lead. I see that prose isn't at issue, though. Tony (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is better. Much better than before. But it's still not FA-grade material. The trivia section of the article needs to be cited properly and converted to prose. The lead section needs to be organized better—it seems like just a bunch of facts "mushed" together. The "Labor issues" section should be subsection of "Design and construction" because the labor issues were only related to the construction of the skyway, and have not been relevant since its completion. The very last paragraph of the article needs to be expanded a bit more, and shown that its a bit more up-to-date. There are no years referenced in the paragraph (except for the year of the I-35W bridge collapse), so it needs to be clear that the information is recent, as in 2010. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm disagreeing with a few of the above comments. The "popular culture" section was easily converted into prose, but I don't think that "This Land Is My Land" needs a citation... the song is the source and that source is already mentioned. Otherwise its a footnote for the sake of a footnote. The "Labor issues" section is of substantial length and doesn't been to be subordinated to "Design and construction". Each covers a complete topic. (It's a personal preference, but I don't like a subsection "X.1" without a "X.2".) As for specifically adding years to that last paragraph, that's not always great writing either. You can set up a maintenance issue where the article looks out of date, even though there's no newer information to incorporate in the article. If events have happened in unspecified timeframes, that's one thing, but don't sprinkle years in there just to make it look "current". I've added some more from one article in the NYT from 2009. Since the news articles are all dated, the references section alone is a good indicator of how recent the information is. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep, there are still some minor updates that can be made, but nothing so large that they should prevent the article from staying listed. Ideally all it should need it some finetuning in the lead and it's good to go. Imzadi 1979 → 04:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Provisional Keep. At this stage of the game, Delist for FA criteria concerns is a non-statement if those concerns are not expressed specifically and clearly. At seen above listed issues have been worked through. In keeping with the timeless aspect of Wikipedia, the fact that NJDOT has identified the bridge as a priority and begun work is current info (a blow-by-blow is not needed only a couple of years into the project). If there are sytlistic issues qua prose BE BOLD and see where it goes. This article is should keep it FA statusDjflem (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the condition that the lead gets cleaned up. Dough4872 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Imzadi1979, Djflem and Dough4872. JJ98 (Talk) 20:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I think we're just waiting for the lead to be cleaned up/expanded before this can be kept. Also, the last two references are not formatted correctly. Dana boomer (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the formatting on the last two references, with the last one replaced with a better source than what was there previously. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Imzadi. I was asked on my talk page to expand on my comment regarding the lead, but wanted to answer here. The lead should be expanded - WP:LEAD recommends 3-4 good sized paragraphs and the current ones are rather short. I would specifically suggest expanding the areas on labor disputes and safety issues by a few sentences each, as both of these are good sized sections that receive only a sentence (or less) of exposure in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the entire article, without including new information. Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does anyone plan to work on fixing the lead? I think that's all we're waiting for before the review can be closed. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I made some fixes to the lead to make it flow better. Dough4872 06:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you for your edits, Dough, but they still don't address my comments on length and coverage. Sandy's comments below also need to be addressed. Is there any update on when this may happen? Dana boomer (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have expanded the lead more and have also addressed Sandy's concerns below. Dough4872 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS review needed (see my edit summaries). Also, I'm unsure about this paragraph:
  • Every defendant was found not guilty ... In addition to this murder, ...
Is it OK to call it a "murder" if there was no conviction? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Pulaski_Skyway/archive1&oldid=1089082412"