This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was developed or improved as a product of the
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Research Commons. Sponsored by
Cascadia Wikimedians User Group and
University of Washington Libraries and held at UW Research Commons.
|
A fact from Evergreen Point Floating Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 May 2016, and was viewed approximately 6,055 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to be approaching live article quality. Any thoughts on what must get done first? - Brianhe ( talk) 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is clear about the length of the floating portion, which is what the world record is based on, but doesn't give (as far as I can see) the total length of the bridge. The 1963 bridge article does give the total length, but there's a 2-foot discrepancy between the lengths by which the new span is said to exceed the old (one article says 130 feet, the other 132). On another note, I think it might be time to change the name of the 1963 article to Evergreen Point Floating Bridge '''(1963)''' instead of leaving it the default. If there is to be a default (rather than a disambig) I would think it should be the current bridge that is defaulted to, with a disambig note at the top to send people to the old bridge. -- Haruo ( talk) 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounder Bruce 22:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So the original bridge had a moveable span to allow vessels to pass, then new one hasn’t but still floats on the water. So what then? They blocked that whole gigantic body of water off for all water traffic?? And everyone on the shores of it just accepted that?? Or does it have a raised fixed part that allows vessels to pass underneath?
Looking at aerial photos, article should mention that the west end of the bridge (though possibly technically beyond the floating portion, but still before the next interchange) is not complete, with a section that is still 4 lanes wide. This apparently is the SR 520 Montlake Project | WSDOT. Jason McHuff ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article was developed or improved as a product of the
Wikipedia Lab at the UW Research Commons. Sponsored by
Cascadia Wikimedians User Group and
University of Washington Libraries and held at UW Research Commons.
|
A fact from Evergreen Point Floating Bridge appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 May 2016, and was viewed approximately 6,055 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This seems to be approaching live article quality. Any thoughts on what must get done first? - Brianhe ( talk) 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The article is clear about the length of the floating portion, which is what the world record is based on, but doesn't give (as far as I can see) the total length of the bridge. The 1963 bridge article does give the total length, but there's a 2-foot discrepancy between the lengths by which the new span is said to exceed the old (one article says 130 feet, the other 132). On another note, I think it might be time to change the name of the 1963 article to Evergreen Point Floating Bridge '''(1963)''' instead of leaving it the default. If there is to be a default (rather than a disambig) I would think it should be the current bridge that is defaulted to, with a disambig note at the top to send people to the old bridge. -- Haruo ( talk) 15:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounder Bruce 22:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
So the original bridge had a moveable span to allow vessels to pass, then new one hasn’t but still floats on the water. So what then? They blocked that whole gigantic body of water off for all water traffic?? And everyone on the shores of it just accepted that?? Or does it have a raised fixed part that allows vessels to pass underneath?
Looking at aerial photos, article should mention that the west end of the bridge (though possibly technically beyond the floating portion, but still before the next interchange) is not complete, with a section that is still 4 lanes wide. This apparently is the SR 520 Montlake Project | WSDOT. Jason McHuff ( talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)