This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. 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.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
The article currently states, "Thirty-two small windows (16 per side) measuring 7 x 27 inches (178 mm x 686 mm), almost invisible from the ground, allow views..." You can't be serious! I've visited the arch twice (once just yesterday), and my 40-year-old eyes have no problem seeing the windows from the ground. (I do not wear glasses, or contacts to correct my vision.) I'm deleting the words "almost invisible" from this article, as it's incorrect and adds nothing to the article. 70.169.212.130 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
deine mudda
I think the section giving equations is not helpful or necessary. There could be a link to an article about catenary and its equations instead. I am not 100% positive, but i also think the equations are WRONG. I believe they describe a catenary, which describes the shape that a uniform chain or rope would hang in. But, the arch is designed as a weighted catenary, which is different, reflecting the form of a chain with heavy links at the ends and lighter in the middle. That hangs differently, and I do not believe the equations are correct.
I don't believe the equations are sourced to a source that applies specifically to the Gateway arch. I believe, rather, that someone looked up equations for catenary arch and put them in, which is wrong because the arch is not a regular catenary arch. Anyhow, a valid source is needed to support use of the equations.
The source that I learnt about the arch following the weighted catenary arch form is the NRHP inventory/nomination document that i read some time ago. I don't know if i read that and did not add it to the article, or if i added it and someone deleted it. I will try adding it now. If there is no big discussion, i will plan to drop the equations section eventually. doncram (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a source for the equations points to the Mathematica example that depicts an arch and names the example Jefferson / Gateway Arch or whatever. However, the example states that the Gateway arch is "essentially" a catenary. The example is an abstraction, which is fine for an example, but it is NOT claiming that the Gateway ARch is a simple catenary and it is not a valid source for that point (which would be false if claimed). doncram (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
better picture?
seems like there should be a better overall-perspective photo of the arch on this page. i don't live near st. louis, so i can't get one myself, but a picture of the complete arch in context would be better than the partial one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.115.204 (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
