Talk:Mt. Baker Sesh Up
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Benjamin Mako Hill in topic Good Start
 | This redirect 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 redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Mt. Baker Sesh Up page were merged into Mt. Baker Ski Area on 24 November 2015 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Good Start edit
This is looking pretty good. I think that looking for references in reliable sources would be a useful step. The references you have are good but they might not establish notability in terms of Wikipedia's policies. —mako๛ 23:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with this assesment. The given sources, without exception, look like blogs or user-submitted content with very little, if any, editorial oversight - thus they're likely not reliable and of very little use to a Wikipedia article. The only one that may come close to meeting the requirements is Frequency, but their "What up" section looks rather bloggy to me, too. Huon (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- We looked around together and found references in Snowboard Magazine and the Bellingham Herald. I think with these in, and with a re-write for tone so that it sounds more like an encyclopedia article, it should be in good shape. —mako๛ 00:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also, I really don't think we're in disagreement Huon about the substantive problems with the article or its state at this time. I also feel there are problems with the references and the issue with notability. If my tone came off as overly positive and optimistic, it's because I'm trying to be encouraging to the newbie. I think this article can be good although it will clearly require more work before it meets the encyclopedia's standards. Part of this might just because I know SleeepyD in person so its easy for me to assume good faith. —mako๛ 19:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- A few more independent sources would indeed be very nice. To my opinion the claim for notability can use some help. The quick Google Test only shows 18.4k hits, boiling down to just 24 unique hits.
- The article also suffers from "recentism". More background and history can fix that, in my opinion. The Banner talk 12:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)