The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [1].
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.
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:
With regard to suggestions above:
Not done
Category:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
Not done
Landmark 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
Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining
Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
Done link to
Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article
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.
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/?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659
Not done please do so, though
Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"
Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written
Done removed
Done fixed
Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with
Wikipedia:DATED
Done split
Done fixed
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
Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link
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.
Done location= Hoboken, NJ added
Done removed
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
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:
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
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?
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
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.
@ 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
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) [1].
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.
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:
With regard to suggestions above:
Not done
Category:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type
Not done
Landmark 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
Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining
Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ
Done link to
Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article
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.
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/?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659
Not done please do so, though
Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"
Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written
Done removed
Done fixed
Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with
Wikipedia:DATED
Done split
Done fixed
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
Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link
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.
Done location= Hoboken, NJ added
Done removed
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
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:
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
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?
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
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.
@ 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