Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway

• Featured article candidates/Pulaski Skyway
• Featured article candidates/Pulaski Skyway/archive1

• Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive1
• Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive2

Pulaski Skyway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) review

Suggestion: Demote from A-Class

Nominator's comments: For a while, I have been concerned about this article, because it was substantially rewritten over a period of two years by an editor with significant

WP:RS

issues who was eventually indefinitely blocked. There is an entire section (Rehabilitation) that did not exist during the last FAR in 2010, and has not been extensively reviewed by others. I think we should take a look at this article and make sure that it meets the appropriate standards.

As a matter of housekeeping, since we have not had one of these in a while: for the review to be closed as successful, this needs three "net" support votes; unlike normal ACR, these votes do not have to be associated with full reviews. Image reviews/spotchecks/source reviews are not required.

Nominated by: Rschen7754 18:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First comment occurred: 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also noting that the nominator (User:SPUI) is long inactive. --Rschen7754 18:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dough4872

1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
2. "The landmark structure",
   WP:PEACOCK
   .
3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As a matter of housekeeping, it seems that the original nominator is not active, so it will probably be us fixing the article. So I have to ask, do you believe all of the issues that you mention are necessary to retain FA status? --Rschen7754 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of them are minor fixes we can probably undertake ourselves, but some of them are pretty major deficiencies such as the sourcing issues and possible missing information. Those major issues definitely need to be fixed for me to vote to retain this as a FA. Dough4872 04:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imzadi1979

I have two main concerns about this article.

1. Is this really part of the USRD scope? We typically exclude bridges from our scope, and I wonder if our project should be claiming this article, since it's essentially about a bridge. Mackinac Bridge isn't in our scope, and Interstate 75 in Michigan covers the bridge, so why is this still in our scope when U.S. Route 1/9 also would cover that section of its routing?
2. I echo many of the concerns about the stability of the article regarding the on-qoing rehabilitation of the structure. I think that the extensive content related to the rehabilitation is a bit
   WP:UNDUE
   in comparison to the rest of the history. It's unlikely that until the project is completed that we could actively enforce a summarization to give it proper weight given the interest in this article by other well-meaning editors.

So in short, I think this needs to be shipped to FAR based on the quality and slow-speed stability issues, and the USRD banner should be removed from the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

• I guess I'll take the initiative here... Reluctantly send to FAR for several reasons. As Imzadi mentions, this isn't really a USRD article; glancing at the content, most of it is what we would expect a bridge article to look like, not a road article. That places it outside of the scope of the HWY ACR. Now, I'm not a fan of kicking an article to the curb just because it isn't a HWY article/is out of our scope. But pragmatically, the article doesn't match the skill set of most of the editors who come by the HWY ACR, and there really isn't much that we can do to fix this article.

Which would be fine if the article doesn't need fixing, but it does. The stability/rehabilitation issues are significant, and require the attention of someone who knows what they are doing. I think bringing this article to a wider venue would be more helpful to resolve the issues; remember, the R in FAR does not stand for removal. Hopefully, this article can retain its FA status, but unfortunately I think it is beyond our abilities here. --Rschen7754 00:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Send to FAR unless someone wants to work on the mostly minor, but also some major, issues I brought up concerning the article. Dough4872 04:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]