Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of highest mountains

List of highest mountains

Informative, referenced, stable, large majority of blue links, and with good introductory material. Doesn't have a picture, but that's not a requirement. Not really a self-nomination as I've only made one minor change. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sorry it took me so long to discover that the list was nominated. Didn't know about nominations, or featured lists for that matter. I've now registered (67.161.117.149 and 209.124.189.39 are me; I tend to get logged out while I'm pondering the edits) and made some edits following below suggestions. It's nice to get feedback! - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple of possibilities for an image would be a map of the area, or a picture of Mount Everest. --Carnildo 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Satellite image with the location of some of the peaks now added.- Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mmm. The image showed up quickly last night, but today it comes very slow or (during peak hours?) even fails to arrive. We could make it a thumbnail, but it is nice to be able to look back and forth where the peaks are. - Afasmit 22:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks good. A map would indeed be very nice. More importantly, where is the information coming from? Is it all from the "High Asia" book mentioned at the end? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also a lot of links cited - RachelBrown 21:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you're right, but this is not what I meant (sorry for being unclear). As the page says, determining the heights is a tricky business, and different sources state different heights. As an example, Annapurna I is listed with a height of 8091m. Which source did this fact come from? Or do in this case, most sources agree? For some mountains, it is noted explicitly that the heights are taken from "High Asia"; can we have more of these notes? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - A complete list of references would be rather long, but I will try to add links for some disputed heights in the near future. I've currently copped out by adding a few more general references. For picking the heights, things are easy where there is a consensus without any otherwise reliable sources disagreeing. This actually happens. Otherwise, here's roughly the order in which I would believe a height: (1) Recent articles or sites discussing a mountain's height, in which the author clearly is aware of the next sources () > (2) High quality, recent (mostly post-"High Asia" publication) topographical maps. (Danish survey of Nepal > Snowy Mountains of China > Alpenvereins maps & Russian 1:100,000 maps) > (3) the High Asia book > (4) The Alpine club library > (5) The list of high prominence mountains being prepared by Jonathan de Ferranti and friends. They haven't gotten around to High Asia yet, but these people are serious about this kind of stuff and their data will soon be the most reliable. (6) Anything else. Prominences are generally not mentioned, so they come from maps only and from the prominence-list people of course. Is there any need for me to spell my methods out like this. I haven't seen quite so much detail in other wikipedia articles. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object – 1) no lead, text needs a copyedit. 2) table looks ugly in 800x600, reduce the font size. 3) map + images needed 4) The status of Kashmir should be clarified. Without it, it may be a POV. Why 70 highest, why not 100? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) I've extended the lead a bit. (2) How do you change the font size in a table? I've not been able to find instructions for it. (3) Done (4) See Poetlist's reply to that. I hope Tibet and Sinkiang are not considered POV either; they narrow the location a bit more than just China. (5) Why 70? The real reason is that Rachel Brown had started this page by copying a top 70 list from Ari's basecamp. However, a cut-off around 7300m is prudent, as many mountains reach that hight in areas for which no good maps are located. I've added this reason to the considerations text. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, the initial list didn't just use Ari's basecamp - I altered quite a few heights after checking other sources, which were listed - though indeed that's why I stopped at 70. RachelBrown 21:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a substantial and useful article. I suggest that the point about Kashmir is trivial; anyone who clicks on the link can find out about it, and it's peripheral to the list. Of course, you can always say why shouldn't the list be longer - why not 150 0r 200? You must stop somewhere! Poetlister 22:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will change my vote to support after a map is added. It can be just a dot map, like for the cities. Renata3 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Map added, but I would like to make it fancier. Is it possible to add a graph with clickable links to the entries in the table? Probably not. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't think it's possible. However, the red numbers are extremely hard to see. And it is not complete clear what are the map shows (ie the scale). But the beginning is nice. Renata3 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object - another fundamentally fine list, but (i) the lead needs to be longer than 11 words in one sentence; (ii) it needs some images (e.g. from Mount Everest and, ideally, a map showing where they are; (iii) there is no "References" section. Does all of the information come from the single listed "Source"? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled by some of this. There are two sections of text after the contents; what would be the point of having them before the contents? There is also a list of external links in addition to the hard copy source. - RachelBrown 12:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you find this baffling. Please look at the requirements in Wikipedia:What is a featured list?, particularly the referneces to Wikipedia:Lead section and Wikipedia:Cite sources. In short, the lead section (the section before the contents) needs to give a succinct summary of the whole article, setting the scene for the casual reader; and a "References" section should capture in one place all of the sources used to create and verify the information in the article. HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what the lead section does; in accordance with Wikipedia philosophy, if you're not happy with it, please feel free to edit it. Would you be happier if the hard copy reference and the external links were in the same section, rather than adjacent to each other? - RachelBrown 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- (i) Made the lead a bit longer (though I think Rachel was right ;-), (ii) done (iii) Much of the data were found on the linked sites, but I've added some general sources. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think there is a very nice NASA sat. picture of the Himalayas somewhere in WP or Commons (I think it may even be featured) that would really enhance this article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. I took the one that covered the region just right. - Afasmit 09:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_mountains I encountered #26 Chomo Lonzo rated at 7804 m / 25603 ft. However the current reference for this is pointing to "Makalu", which lists "Chomo Lonzo (7,818m/25,650')". I've updated the list page to reflect the elevations for Chomo Lonzo as on the Makalu page. -- {andyraff 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)}[reply]