Talk:Humbug Mountain

Comment

wow, i just drove through there last month - i even took a picture of it. neat-o to find it on wikipedia!! Kingturtle 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Tidy up references

This article needs some tidying up of the references. For example Views of the Pacific Ocean can be seen from the grassy summit. is followed by no less than 6 inline citations. This is surely not such a controversial point that it needs 6 different references to back it up. This is after all a mountain by the Pacific Ocean. Is it controvershal that the summit is grassy? The over referencing just becomes impenetrable. Polargeo (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just adding all references that contain that information. I'm not exactly sure which ones to remove and which ones to keep, since they all state mostly the same info. Any suggestions? LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I added this section before I took the plunge to review the article. This point doesn't fail the article for GA status at all. It is just my own point of view, feel free to disagree. Having such long lists of inline citations when not necessary is a little distracting. If you can just tone it down to the most relevent 2 or 3 of the references in each inline citation that would be better. Unless it is a vital point you are reinforcing or something people may question, in that case a list of 6 inline references may be entirely appropriate. As most of the references are unobtainable to me I can't really do this. Polargeo (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another related point is the over use of wikilinks. It struck me when I first looked at the article but I forgot to mention it then. This is particularly noticeable in the lead section and the flora and fauna section. It distracts from the reading. Several things that don't need links include mountains (mountains could be in a see also section) campground, hikers, spring, plants, trees, birds, berries, beach etc. If the reader doesn't know what you mean then they probably cannot read the article anyway. Check Wikipedia:MOS#Wikilinks. I would be happy to correct this myself at any point but I don't want to tread on toes while the article is being improved. Polargeo (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tourism

Best view from top of Humbug Mountain

The summit, surrounded by tall trees

Somewhere along the west trail where the trees thinned enough to see a little (trail is visible just left of center)

Not that there is any information on the page that shouldn't be here but in places the article reads a little bit like a tourist brochure. It just needs to be reworded a bit to read more like an encyclopedic article. I don't necessarily think this comes in the way of obtaining GA status. Polargeo (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what are the problem sections, or is it the whole article? Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Again I added this before deciding to review the article. Also the article doesn't fail to meet GA criteria based on this. Re-reading the article it is certainly only a very small amount of the article. One bit that stands out is the views from the grassy summit. Yes say it has a grassy summit and yes say it has a good panoramic view of the pacific ocean. Or directly quote the brochure. ie. The Mountina Parks Organisation state 'The moutnain has wonderful views from its soft grassy summit.' Hiking to this summit is a big tourist attraction with XX hikers making the trip every summer ref ref etc.

Following on from this. The article is mostly well written but some of the text does look a bit like it has been taken from the guide books. I cannot check this out but it may be worth carefully checking to make sure if direct quotes are used they are properly referenced with quotation marks and the particular guide book/organisation mentioned in the text. Or alter the text enough so that it is an original summary of the books. Essentially there could be a copyright issue. Sorry if you've already done this and you write a very good standard of prose.Polargeo (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually there isn't a very good view from the top, at least not two weeks ago: the meadow is there, but the trees have grown up around it so that very little ocean is visible. There's one thinnish gap in the trees where maybe 10 degrees of the panorama shows water. Even that's not so good: the ocean is visible from like one mile out to the horizon. The view of the mountain/ocean interface isn't visible anywhere. See photos. Feel free to add to the article if you think it's helpful. —EncMstr (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@Polargeo: Thanks for the suggestions. As for the copyright issue, I did not copy any text from any guide books, I did summarize. But thanks for checking. :) And also, thanks for taking the time to review the article.

@EncMstr: What should I do about that? Is there any way to cite a photo or first hand experience? Thanks, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit creative, but fulfills the purpose of a citation. "There is no view at the top.<ref> See photo [ [:file:photo]] </ref>"

Another way is to assert the fact and see if challengers appear before thinking about a citation. —EncMstr (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There has been a major logging off of the top --and so now there is a view from the top. 2600:6C55:6700:1A8A:DCDA:5D27:354D:8643 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Great to see some images from the summit. Another thing I thought is the flora / Fauna section/ it should be fairly easy to dig out a nice image of one of the most common animals or flowers that grow on the mountin. Polargeo (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, both of you. LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

For flora, I added another photo (right) showing the typical character of the forest canopy and undergrowth. The trees are surprisingly immense. I also took an unremarkable photo of a Trillium around here. —EncMstr (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Those are great pictures, by the way. :) LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Humbug Mountain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Just stating the review Polargeo (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This looks a lovely place but I don't think it is quite there yet as a good article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Nearly there. I find the lead section dosen't flow very well.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   As I said on the talk page. The article is okay for GA stauts but there is a little overkill on inline citations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is the main point I am failing the article on. The geography section is a little circular and confusing and I find I am left wanting for more information. Geologically is the mountain sandstone? I can't really tell. This is important for what is essentially a geological feature. I suggest having a look around some of the other GA mountain articles and comparing the level of coverage on the geology, I think this article needs much more. Also the History section. What group of Native Americans named the mountain? Did they live there? Did they go there? Was it an important place? When was the area first used? Has anyone every lived on the mountain? Do they now? Also climate. If I'm thinking of going camping and hiking on the mountain what time of year would I go? Is it a rainy place? Is it too hot in July? I don't really get any sense of this.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

   Has it been illustrated where possible? It does seem to be very lacking in images. With just two distant images of the mountain which look very similar to each other. This is quite low for this type of article and I think it probably needs improving upon for GA status.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I hope you can get the article to GA and if you want I would be happy to take another look sometime in the future

   Thanks for reviewing the article. I may take you up on that offer at a later time. :) Thanks again, LITTLEMOUNTAIN5 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Humbug Mountain/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.

Article meets all B class criteria. It is still a little way short of GA please see review. Polargeo (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)