Jump to content

Talk:Joppenbergh Mountain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJoppenbergh Mountain 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2013.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
June 6, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
July 28, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 30, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that in 1937, the slopes of Joppenbergh Mountain were coated with borax for a summer ski jumping competition?
Current status: Featured article

Mountain or hill?

[edit]

Its name is "mountain" but in the text I think – by the principle that a Bombay duck is a fish – we should call it a "hill" (as the NYT does in one of the refs). Mountains are generally held to be at least 2,000 feet high and this one is not even a quarter of that. Ericoides (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technical definition of what separates hills from mountains, but the sources consistently referred to Joppenbergh as a mountain. One NYT ref does use the word hill, but another NYT ref on the cave-in mentions the "mountain-side". The sources for its height and composition use the term "mountain" as well. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Britain and Ireland a mountain is usually taken to be over 2000 feet, but even in America I thought 1000 feet was the threshhold. This is a pimple! :) Bermicourt (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fix typo or add [sic]

[edit]

The title of one of the references is listed as "Ninety-Foot Jump Made On Skiis On Borax Track". If the misspelling of "skis" was a transcription error, it should be corrected, or if that's the actual title as it appeared in the source, there should be a [sic]. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added [sic], because that's how I have it written in my notes. I'll check the next time I'm at the Rosendale Library, though. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Joppenbergh Mountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for nominating this article. I enjoyed it as a valuable addition to the Rosendale collection. No disamb. or invalid external links.[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Disamb. links and external links check out.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    "when a new slope was built,"->"when a new slope was built on the mountain,"
    Change "Central Hudson"->"Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp."
    "a skiing competition was held in January 1966."->"a ski jumping competition was held in January 1966."
    Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Footnote 30 needs a better citation format. How about, "New York Public Service Commission, Opinion No. 95-6, "Opinion and Order Granting Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need" (PDF), CASE 91-E-0529, 1995-05-23. pp. 1–2, 17–18. Retrieved 2011-04-18." - include the Opinion number and the case number.
    Done. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Please state whether the sale to the OSI was consumated or is awaiting closing. Explain what "open space" conditions OSI would add to the deed when it sells the mountain back to the village.
    The article is not clear whether the former mayor's parking lot is a part of the OSI land purchase or whether having the OSI land, future use of the former mayor's parking lot becomes unnecessary.
    The sources don't say whether the deal is still being worked out, or if it is already over, and the sources also don't connect the former mayor's land with the current property. I'm hoping some future source clears this up, because I'm also confused about this. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Thank you for contributing the kiln photo. Copyright issues on all images check out.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am placing the article on hold so that you may address the above noted concerns. Racepacket (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on another Good Article. Racepacket (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsen Rutger?

[edit]

This name is very unlikely. By Dutch naming patterns it should be Jacob Rutgersen or Jacob Rutgers. You don't add a patronymic to your own name while keeping your father's name unchanged. Rmhermen (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By current Dutch naming patterns, or 17th-century ones?

Also, it's not uncommon around here in the Hudson Valley for Dutch names to have been corrupted or bastardized over the years, especially as Dutch faded from first-language use around the end of the 18th century (cf. Moordenaars Creek becoming Moodna Creek) or invented entirely to make a better story ("Kaaterskill" as the name of a stream and a mountain makes no sense in Dutch. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Dutch names#Patronymics. It doesn't make sense for Rugter's son to be named "Jacob's son". Rmhermen (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I was trying to make clear, this information may have been recorded by people whose knowledge of Dutch was minimal, to say the least. It doesn't make sense, but as I noted above some of our Dutch toponyms don't make sense compared to actual Dutch, either. Daniel Case (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, I see what you're trying to say. Maybe the son got as a first name the name of someone else who'd married into the family tree? It seems to have been a common naming practice in the 19th century. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joppenbergh Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joppenbergh Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joppenbergh Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joppenbergh Mountain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joppenbergh_Mountain&oldid=1207858960"