Talk:Pulaski Skyway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pulaski Skyway is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Pulaski Skyway appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2005.

This article was the selected article of the the U.S. Roads Portal in April 2006.

	This article is part of the New Jersey State and County Routes WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to highways in New Jersey. 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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)

I don't want to edit this because I'm really not sure... but the table is titled "Pulaski Skywaye" and I am assuming the 'e' is extra but I'd rather a normal editor of this article fix it and not myself. -gren

Fuck; my bad. --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the March 1, 1930 date for the start of construction; the date of opening on nycroads.com proved incorrect (checked against NY Times articles). --SPUI 10:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A NY Times article from April 13 says that bids will be received April 29. BUSTED. --SPUI 11:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has a good view of the Skyway from the side, please add it. That's the one view that's missing. --SPUI 13:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eeep. Are you sure that many pictures are needed? Wikipedia is not a photo album or a satellite database. As nice as some of these are, putting images to both the left and right makes the intro text almost unreadable. It might be tough, but maybe you should look carefully if one or the other shouldn't go. Some of these don't add much, for example: we all have a general idea of what highways look like, so is a picture of (for example) one of the left-side ramps really informative to the reader? I don't know if we already have a solution for this problem, e.g. whether creating a separate picture page is OK or something like WikiAlbum should be created; maybe you should ask the Village Pump.

I realize you put in the hard work, that it's tough to kill your darlings, and that I didn't write it so what am I talking about, but remember that the article should be judged on its merits to the readers, not the writers. Just my $0.02. JRM 00:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Update: Moverton fixed the main layout problem. It's not half as bad now. As long as you're not planning on, say, adding half a dozen more pictures, I think we're in the clear. :-) JRM 00:46, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

How about we remove the out-of-focus pictures and alter the left over photo to incress the constrast? ^_^ 138.89.177.98

traffic data:

• opening 20800 per day weekdays 23800 saturdays 38700 sundays (23786 average)
• early 1934 30000/35000/45000 (32857 average)
• 1987 43650 per day
• 2000 62390 per day

[edit] Bridge?

the Pulasky Skyway is a "structure" and not a bridge? It fits the definition of a bridge: A bridge is a structure built to span a gorge, valley, road, railroad track, river or other body of water, or any other physical obstacle. Sure looks like a cantilever bridge to me.

It's not a bridge. It contains two bridges, but most of it is just an elevated road over the meadowlands – flamurai^TM 19:11, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't "meadowlands" -- they're dock yards and urban areas. The NJ "Meadowlands" are somewhat northwest.

My mistake... I should've said "meadows". That doesn't change that the skyway travels mostly over land, though. – flamurai^TM 20:07, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Are you really implying that a bridge cannot span land? "An elevated road" falls within the definition of a bridge. Webster tells me Bridge: a structure carrying a pathway or roadway over a depression or obstacle. A highway overpass is a bridge. A "structure" that spans a valley is a bridge. Cacophony 04:23, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

It is a bridge, but with subbridges. It's easier to refer to the whole thing as a structure, and the four separate subbridges (two rivers and two railroads) as bridges.--SPUI 04:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not just refer to the subbridges as segments of the bridge. After all, if the segments weren't connected to form a whole bridge, it wouldn't be bridging anything, would it? --brian0918™ 06:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're being overly technical and pedantic. Encyclopedias are meant for the average reader. The average person thinks of a bridge as something that spans two points, while the Pulaski Skyway has numerous on- and off-ramps. The average person would not call the Skyway a bridge. I agree with SPUI's reasoning, as well. – flamurai^TM 08:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

If the "average reader" has a misunderstanding about what is or is not a bridge, the job of the encyclopedia is to correct this misunderstanding, not perpetuate it. The Pulsaki Skyway is cited in the bridge article as an outstanding example of a bridge bridge#Outstanding bridges. Cacophony 18:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mabye the article should read "Pulaski Skyway, is a series of cantilever truss bridges in New Jersey"? I'll just throw that out there as an idea. I just can't get behind calling it a structure when it is refered to as a good example of a bridge, in Category:Bridges in New Jersey, and well within the definition of a bridge. Cacophony 18:29, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

That sits better with me. For example, the Triborough Bridge also consists of multiple bridges, and the article is worded similarly. – flamurai^TM 19:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pedestrian and bicycle access information is missing.

I'd like to see every wikipedia article about bridges specifically mention the status of pedestrian and bicycle access ie if there is a sidewalk on the bridge (or if there isn't) and where the access points to the sidewalk are located.

– Dennis _{(talk) (Wiki NYC Meetup)}[[]] 16:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Good point; I'm in agreement. This specific one bans them, being a freeway. I added that to the article. --SPUI 16:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two "References" sections

There seem to be two references section. That's a little bit odd. TheGrappler 14:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there were two citation methods used in the article. The top section dosen't really show what statements are being referenced. I'll go through the edit history and see if I can make sense of it. Cacophony 00:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The original reference section was added by SPUI all at once so it is hard to say which statements are being referenced. I'm not sure how they should be merged. Cacophony 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I can sort it out at some point. --SPUI (T - C) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)