Talk:Evergreen Point Floating Bridge
 | 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Going live
editThis seems to be approaching live article quality. Any thoughts on what must get done first? - Brianhe (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Design section needs work, with construction a close second in priority. Background and planning can be left short until I can come back to it. I'd like to have the page live before April 11 (opening to traffic). SounderBruce 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- This kind of looks like an article now, what do you think? - Brianhe (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Total length of bridge and difference of new record
editThe 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)
- The measurement of the new bridge's length has been a bit inconsistent, between WSDOT's figure (7,710) and the Guinness Book of Record's figure (7,708). I'm waiting for the National Bridge Inventory to update for the year and get an official length (and the total length including the old approach spans to the west). As for the page move, I agree and tried to do so a few weeks ago but was reverted. I've started a request to move it on the other talk page. SounderBruce 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Resources for future expansion
editWater traffic
editSo 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?
West end not complete
editLooking 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)
- Added a short mention, but much of this is already covered in Washington State Route 520. SounderBruce 02:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)