Jump to content

Talk:Roxy Ann Peak/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Federal Lands for Parks Act

Unresolved

Does anybody know anything about this act? Zab (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally know anything, but the information is at http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Files/Prescott%20Brochure.pdf. Little Mountain 5 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I saw it there, but that's it. I find nothing in the federal record. The only thing I can think of is it must've been a county or state act, but that means hitting the historical societies and picking through their paper records. I'm actively looking for it, and will visit the Phoenix Genealogical office here in a few days.. Zab (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Although this has improved, it is not quite B class. Its getting close. Need more geologic info than just a little on soil and it being a 30 million year old volcano. For instance types of rocks (besides just igneous). Try adding in some info about the general geologic forces working in the area, which may provide additional source material on the peak itself. Also, park hours are generally excluded. Then though I see trees in the picture, the vegetation of the peak is not covered. Beyond that, there are some tone/style issues that would need to be dealt with: "was also probably good" is not encyclopedic for instance. The WP:LEAD needs expansion, and then there are several citation/punctuation issues (proper: .[1]) (improper: [2].). But good job expanding and sourcing. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was happy with "start" class for all the garbage I dumped in to it under the guise of quality work. To be honest I was really confused about the assessment until I saw that Little Mountain 5 (talk · contribs) requested one. Well, I am still confused, but hey! Zab (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The only reason I asked for an assessment is to see what this article needs to improve on. (Thanks, Aboutmovies)! Little Mountain 5 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

added to Category:Mountains of Oregon

I added his to the category Mountains of Oregon even though it is already in the category Volcanoes of Oregon because it is a mountain. Some valcanoes are just holes in the ground (calderas for example).--DRoll (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources?

Congratulations on the GA status. If folks here have opinions about maps being secondary sources perhaps you would care to join in the NOR discussion. --DRoll (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

According to the MOS date formats should be consistent throughout an article. So if month-day-year or day-month-year - YYYY-MM-DD is used it should be used consistently. Of course there are special cases like quotes. So the recent edit was a good thing. --DRoll (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

If anybody watching this didn't notice, the article is currently under peer review. LittleMountain5 02:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Some post-peer review comments as requested

As requested I have looked at the article again, following the substantial revisions it has received since peer review.

  • Lead: The last few words are "...which will replace three of the four existing towers". As this is the first mention of existing towers the word "the" should be deleted, thus: "...which will replace three of four existing towers". The source gives useful information about the height of these existing towers, so why don't you?
     Done LittleMountain5 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Prescott Park
  • Access and trails: "Accessing Roxy Ann Park is done via Roxy Ann Road..." This is very clumsy. Try "Access to Roxy Ann Park is via..."
     Done LittleMountain5 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Development
    • On my screen there is a stray [edit] link at the end of line three. Try to fix this if it happens on yours.
      ( Done —WWoods (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC))
    • The section is about two different things, future housing development and existing commercial activities. Possibly a more general section title is necessary. Don't sweat on this, though, it's not a major point.
      Any suggestions? LittleMountain5 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about A-class. My own inclination would be to take it to FAC. Even if it is not promoted first time there should be useful feedback that would help a renomination to succeed. Look carefully at the FA criteria before nominating, though, and be sure you think that the article meets these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for the suggestions. LittleMountain5 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC?

Just about everything that's been suggested has been done, and it seems to meet all the featured article criteria, so I want to see if anybody watching this page thinks we should submit it as a Featured Article Candidate. I've never done it before, so if anyone wants to co-nom, they're welcome to. Thanks. LittleMountain5 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing none, I'm going to nom it. However, if you still want to comment or co-nom, feel free to do so. LittleMountain5 23:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The page is here. LittleMountain5 00:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
A little late in the game but what was the negatives on FA? I was still on my other projects in February so I wasn't around for this one. ZabMilenko 02:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The archive of the FAC is here. There was really only one !vote, by Karanacs. She said that the article is not comprehensive enough, and there aren't enough journals and academic studies about it. I'm hoping that eventually someone will find something like that, and maybe we could resubmit it then. Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 03:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh. The sources aren't difficult, since Mail Tribune references local academic work pretty regularly; just gotta find the work (most likely stored at SOU or SOHS). Comprehensiveness is another issue. Nice job on pushing it to GA. ZabMilenko 04:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, I just don't know if there's enough information to make the article truly comprehensive, but I'll try. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Prominence calculations

As the article stated before my edit the key col is between 2,800 and 2,820 feet. To find the clean prominence we subtract the least optimistic elevation of the key col (2,820 ft in this case) from the summit elevation. Both the summit and key col elevations need to use the same datum. Consulting the NGS datasheet we find that NAVD 88 summit elevation is 3,576 and the NGVD 29 elevation of the summit is 3,573. The NAVD 88 elevation is just the NGVD 29 elevation converted using VERTICON. The key col elevation is found using the topographic map Rio Canyon which uses the NGVD 29 datum (I checked). Therefore the prominence is 3,573 - 2,820 = 753 which is the prominence given on the Peakbagger page. –droll [chat]

Earlier in the paragraph you said 2,820 but in your calculation you use 2,800. Now in my mind 2,800 is least optimistic, so I am assuming the first number was a mistake. I don't know much about prominence and key col stuff other than what I just read, so forgive me if I am misunderstanding. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 02:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Sorry for the confusion. I corrected my error above so as not to cause future confusion. Thanks for spotting that. –droll [chat] 02:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it is you who should be thanked for your efforts in correcting the figure and for posting the details here. How prominence is calculated was quite an interesting read. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 05:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Ditto. That's pretty neat, thanks. :) LittleMountain5 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LittleMountain5 21:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Roxy Ann Peak/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I believe it generally meets class B criteria. Suggestions for improvement:
  • lead section needs to be expanded
  • reference needed for prominence
  • all reference tags should be after punctuation
  • review Good article criteria for further suggestions before nominating for GA.
RedWolf (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ nothing
  2. ^ nothing
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roxy_Ann_Peak/Archive_1&oldid=1146351908"