Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pulaski Skyway/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [1].

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

  1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
  2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
  3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
  4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

  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 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to suggestions above:
  • "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.

 Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

 Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all

  • 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.

 Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining

  • "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.

 Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ

  • Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."

 Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article

  • 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.

 Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.

  • Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.

 Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659

  • 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.

 Not done please do so, though

  • "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.

 Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"

  • 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.

 Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written

  • Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."

 Done removed

  • 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.

 Done fixed

  • "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

 Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED

  • The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.

 Done split

  • "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.

 Done fixed

  • "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?

 Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added

  • References 3 and 103 are dead links.

 Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

  • The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.

 DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010.

  • Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.

 Done location= Hoboken, NJ added

  • Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.

 Done removed

  • Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

 Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regard to above:
  • There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.

but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:

  • There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status

which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding

  • The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.

which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?

  • There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,

but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.

Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. 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. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review

The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.

This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The main substantive criticism was the weight of the more recent section, but as I said above, I'm not convinced that the section is undue, given that the skyway has little history to describe other than its construction and repair. The other points raised are essentially arguable either way. I do think that the article is weak because it introduces material, such as the bill to raise tolls, but then doesn't build on or explain that. I suspect that the bill failed and so that's why tolls were never introduced but this is left hanging in the article because there are no sources (that I can find) that actually tell us what happened next. Similarly, we are told that in 1952 some trucks drove onto the skyway, but the paragraph covering that basically sits by itself and doesn't fit easily into the narrative flow, in my opinion. This style of writing can be typical of more esoteric topics, because there is so little material to gather, the article ends up being a hash of individual snippets rather than a flowing story. I am not saying that this material should be cut, only that the subject matter does not lend itself easily to good prose. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DrKay. The narrative is not entirely brilliant, but I'm not sure it could be such given the material and sources. I'm aware that the weight issue is contentious, but I'm not convinced it's dire enough for delisting. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2016 (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/archive2&oldid=1088820927"