Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Garibaldi/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 17:48, 22 May 2008.

Mount Garibaldi edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because I feel it is rather excellent and comprehensive. It is well-referenced and gives all that a featured article needs. An example of excellent work by Black Tusk. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree per Meldshal42. Garibaldi is also one of the most notable mountains in southern British Columbia, as well as one of Canada's best known volcanoes. Black Tusk 22:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A large number of the refs are lacking a publisher listed. Also, dividing the refs into two columns would look a bit better. I just don't have time to check sources that are lacking listed publishers. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose, as due diligence has not been done to make sure this article conforms to FA criteria before posting here as required by the instructions. Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. At the basic level:
    • Sources are not properly cited; as Ealdgyth points out, many of them lack the required publisher and other information. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources.
    • Questionable sources. What makes Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia a reliable source? It appears to be made up of user-submitted information with no visible fact-checking or editorial process. I could not find any print sources that refer to Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia as a reliable source of information. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: You should ask User:Skookum1 about the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia. If the Encyclopedia is not a reliable source I'm pretty sure there's other reliable sources. Please see the first few sources in the article and tell me if that's appropiate or not (i.e. properly cited). Black Tusk 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking better on the citation formatting. You might consider using the {{cite web}} template to get the required elements and formatting. As for the source, if you have proof that it is reliable, please post it here. I will not be going around tracking down that information. Most of this work needs to be done before posting an FAC; I suggest withdrawing this nomination until you can get everything sorted out. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I used with the first few sources. I mentioned User:Skookum1 because he was a volunteer for the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia and so he probably knows more about the website. I always found Bivouac accurate for information. Black Tusk 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Bivouac/CME is reliable for summit data, latlong, range information, prominence hierarchies/zones and pass elevations, though some of these materials are indeed available only to subscribers (which were not when I was a volunteer). First ascents and publications are also reliable, although with historical/explanatory content/text - in the article bodies, I don't mean the trip reports and photo essays, which as members-only can't be cited anyway - but the geographic data did have its parameters. Various digital map sources were used, USGS for the US portions of data, TRIM/BC Basemap as the standard in BC, and I cant' remember which digital atlas for the Yukon and elsewhere (I didn't work so much with those areas). Bivouac's own citations, if they're there, are hidden within the site. Close to all official names of summits in BC are recorded - I know because I "mined" BC Basemap, though it's not as comprehensive as it turns out as BCGNIS. So it depends on what is being cited; if it's a cite in reference to elevation, latlong, prominence differentials/rankings within its area, and likely also the geology if any, plus the climbing history; yes, it's all valid and drawn from known sources. It would help if the site's owner would place citation notices somewhere in the public area of the site; if my word can't be taken for granted, well, all I can say is I gave thousands of hours over three years, created or checked tens of thousands of mountain entries, hundreds of passes and lakes and various other features. I know what sources were used; I know as a Wiki member I'm not citable, though, and I doubt I'm listed in any credits within bivouac/ perhaps so but I'm no longer a member.Skookum1 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Thanks Skookum1. I finished the citation formatting using the {{cite web}} template. Black Tusk 01:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I need to see a reliable source like a print journal referring to Bivouac as a reliable source. --Laser brain (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A major problem with this is Bivouac is the only major site that has mountain information, such as heights, coordinates, range, etc. and I know it's popular (e.g. see some of the Canadian mountain articles). I haven't seen any other site with such infomation. Black Tusk 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also peaklist.org and peakbagger,com, both prominence-oriented sites; peakbagger is pretty thorough but doesn't contain minor summits, or any non-topographic data/info. And for Canadian summits their sources ar less consistent than Bivouac. I'm on self-imposed not-speaking-to terms with the owner of Bivoauc (Robin Tivy) but if someone write him and asked for a precis of hits site's sources to b e placed on a public page, so it can be cited, I'm sure he'd comply gladly (when he gets around to it). Bivouac was intended to be4 encylopedia but systems-load issues trumped that and various sacrifices were made, long story; it's the lcosst thing to a compehrensive mountain encylopedia onlien right now; until Wiki ge3ts done that is; Bivouac's biggest problem was the lack of conensual input/editing as is doen here; alienation of volunteers, ditching of valid data because of sysstem-load problems, spurious on-the-fly decisions by the site owner as to naming unnamed summits, how to organize zones, whether or not mountain range designations were relevant and more; it's a pity that such a huge collective effort is the province of one man's human foibles and vanities, but .....it's what it is..;.Skookum1 (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know peakbagger.com and looked to see if Garibaldi is mentioned but it isn't. I never herd of peaklist.org. I asked Roblin Tivy earlier today about the Garibaldi area and if he has any sources, but has not replied yet. Black Tusk 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not that it necessarily matters for FA status, I'd like to see a close-up area map so the many perihperal locations/summits around Garibaldi can be demonstrated better; partly because this is a popular hiking/viewing area, and the vicinity's role in the foundation of hte provincial park system is also worth mentioning; I can see other areas this article could grow content-wise, but in terms of FA parameters I imagine it doesn't matter; it's the thoroughness and design/format of what's there now that counts. Anyway a map detailing Brohm Ridge, Diamond Head, Atwell, the Elfin Lakes, the Table, the Barrier and maybe the old Garibaldi townsite would probably be a good thing in the long run.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I uploaded a topographic map of the Garibaldi area as Image:Maps - Mamaquam Lake & Garibaldi Neve Topo.jpg which shows The Table, Atwell Peak, Dalton Dome, Opal Cone, The Sharkfin, etc. But I didn't include the map because I don't think there's enough room for it right now, unless it could go where the see also and references are (I was going to save it for the "Glaciers and icefields" section if it became larger). Black Tusk 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Added map mentioned above and new section with references. Black Tusk 16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following sources reliable?
  • Current ref 1 (Mount Garibaldi Bivouac.com The Cnaadian Mountain Encyclopedia) gives a last access date of 11 November 2008, which date hasn't arrived yet.
  • Current ref 7 "An Assessment of Natural Hazards..." is actually a book, and should use the cite book template or something similar.
  • Same for current ref 11 "Excerpt from Chapter 1..."
  • Current ref 13 "Squamish Nationa Language Department..." has a last access date like a website, but no link, is it missing?
  • Current ref 12 "KWA KWAYEXWELH..." has the title in all caps (which is a no-no) as well as the link goes to the wrong page, I believe. Currently it's going to http://www.harbourpublishing.com/excerpt/AroundtheSound/103 which is the link for the previous ref.
  • http://www.bctravel.com/squamish/index.html Current ref 16 "Welcome to Squamish..." is to a travel website. Surely there are better sources for the information "British Explorer Captain George Vancouver reached Howe Sound in June 1792 and became the first European to see the mountain. During this time George Vancouver met and traded with the local natives in the area."?
  • Current ref 19 "Wild Snow: A Historical Guide..." is a book, not a website. Please format the references as such.
  • Current ref 36 "Living with Volcanic Risk.." is lacking a publisher.
  • Current ref 39 "Preliminary petrography and chemistry of the..." is a journal article, or a conference paper. Would be better formatted using cite journal. Also it's lacking a publisher as it stands.
  • http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/DL/ARISReports/27299.pdf Current ref 52 is lacking the author information.
Other sources look good. Links checked out fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The infomation on the websites you listed above is correct; you can find more reliable references elsewhere on the net and they mention the same thing, same goes for Bivouac. I also know because I know lots about the subject, so I wouldn't source false infomation.
  • The infomation about Silverthrone on http://www.skimountaineer.com/ is true because scientific study has been very limited due to its extremely remote location. The infomation on that website is similar to http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=1200-16- but it's worded better; if the volcanic complex is dissected most of the evidence would most likely be removed as mentioned in the article. You could also find out using maps, which I already have.
  • I removed "KWA KWAYEXWELH..." because I couldn't find the source (and the title was in all caps).
  • The infomation on http://www.garibaldipark.com/ is very similar to some of the infomation in one of the books I cited. I don't understand your quote about George Vancouver and the natives; explain. Natives arrived in North America before Europeans did if that explains your question.
The quote about George Vancouver is sourced to the site http://www.bctravel.com/squamish/index.html (or was this morning) which is a travel tourism site. What i'm querying is that using a tourism site to source a historical statement is odd, to say the least. Wouldn't it be better to source a bit of historical context to say a history book/website? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other sites, you haven't explained what makes these particular sites reliable sources. The information may be correct, but that doesn't mean the site itself is considered a reliable source by WP:RS. Student essays, even from a competition, are not a reliable source. And that's what ThinkQuest is, a student comepetition. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- The articles on Bivouac are for the most part reliable, I haven't came across a single article while reviewing the references on this page. I really don't see what the problem is. If you say the Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia isn't reliable because anyone can edit it, that's like saying that Wikipedia heself isn't a reliable source. Now that's starting to sound like my librarian! Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 00:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, Bivouac.com is NOT editable by anyone; only key volunteers have edit access and changes to summit/location ata are stringently watched over; there are few vanadal in a members-only site obviously. the CME/Bivouac is the closest thing there is to any authoritative, comprehensive source taking in all of what it takes in. I'll look over the entry/non-member visible pages later and see if maybe there is an existng citation page; climbing history is usually from Fairley by the way or from "The Mountaineers' in Seattle, if you know how Fairley is. As for the rest of things like range classifications and definitions of various geographic entities, I used S. Holland's Landforms of British Columbia, which I also use for Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia mountain articles in BC that were not already there were added by yorus truly; or mountain range articles I should say; not just cribbing for bivouac but also adding other materials when possible. Holland is online but won't have specifics on individual summits, fthough for the Garibaldi area there may be something on that particular local area.Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add t hat the CME is much more encyclopedic in authority than the highly-touted and much-0self-promoted Canadian Encyclopedia, which for all its citations and academic pretensions is full of major errors, particulary geographic ones.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Bivouac dosen't have/show references dosen't mean it's not reliable. It is accurate to have sources, but if you look around you will find some conflicting infomation with sources as well. To me a reliable source is something that's true and a non-reliable source is something that's not true. Black Tusk 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Ealdgyth that for a good/featured article, we should stick to a strict interpretation of what a reliable source is---that is, stick to the Wikipedia definition, not personal opinion about the word "reliable". As Ealdgyth has pointed out, the key is having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. While bivouac.com is, in my experience, a high-quality site, its processes are not transparent, its information is not cited, and I don't know of independent, reliable sources that verify its reputation. (It would be a good idea in general to find such info, if it's out there, since it would be nice to be able to use bivouac.com without worry.) I often use bivouac as an external link, and sometimes as a reference, but if I wanted to shape up an article to GA/FA status, I would want to replace those cites with more solid ones.

It seems that most of the bivouac cites (I didn't look at all of them) were just about peak names and heights. Surely there are print sources for that info? I know that's less convenient than citing bivouac, but it is more in accordance with WP policy. The sticking point might be if there is info from bivouac that is really hard to find in print. -- Spireguy (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the way to go about this, though it's a lot of work ultimately, is to supplant all Bivouac latlong/elevation refs with BC Basemap for inside-BC and USGS for those in the US, which were as I noted what we used as teh standards; I could look in my old email files to find what soruces were used for parts of Canada outside BC; for boundary peaks such as those on the BC/AB border the Basemap (STRIM) elevatinos/locations were used; often there's discrepancies.Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but Bivouac is the only site I have seen elevations and infomation for certain mountains; try finding elevations for The Tent, Diamond Head, Brohm Ridge, The Sharkfin or The Gargoyles. The only summits I could find without using Bivouac is the main summit of Mount Garibaldi, Atwell Peak, Columnar Peak, Dalton Dome, and Glacier Pikes here, which is a reliable site (it includes references). And I couldn't find anything about the prominence. Black Tusk 16:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand about Basemap; all the locations you've just mentioned are searchable there, which is how they were verified/checked for Bivouac. There's a way to parse basemap's site so that it will open at a particular location but I've never figured it out, bivouac's site-owner cracked it; he managed the same with Topozone, which we used for USGS but is no longer a freesite (now part of trails.com). Even without site-specific basemap links, Basemap is still ultimately the datasource for Diamond Head, the Gargoyles, Brohm Ridge et al - only ungazetted summits are not citable this way. Prominence calculations are the diffrential between the summit and its key pass; sometimes those passes are gazetted but many are not.Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand about Basemap, I just don't know what it is. And I'm no expert on mapping. Maybe if you could give me the link to Basemap I could give it a try. Black Tusk 17:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I thought I'd provided the link during oru various discussions elsewhere; here it is and also a more complicated version drawn from teh same database. Both of these have been subsumed into some larger database, as explaiend at http://maps.gov.bc.ca .Skookum1 (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you find the peaks? Can you search with coordinates? I think the link to the more complicated version is broken BTW. Black Tusk 19:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so; look for Land and Data Resources Warehouse catalogue on http://maps.gov.bc.ca. Use "Find location" and search by placename or latlong or whatever you want.Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I think this is a waste of our time. The information there is reliable. I don't see why Black Tusk needs to look it all up over again. Like I said, a waste of time. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a waste of time if a more authoritative reliable source is determined; since bivouac's sources are known (by me, who did them) it seems proper top say "well, just use the original cite that bivouac used).Skookum1 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be more useful and faster if more users would help the article other than commenting about the references and other issues. Commenting won't get you nowhere. The more help the more likely this article will become featured; one user is not enough. Ealdgyth most likely knows something if the publishers are wrong etc. Black Tusk 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, found something about the Diamond head area here. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Seems like a quality site. I think it will work. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I replaced some of the Bivouac links with the website here which appears to be more reliable. While I was changing the references, I noticed Bivouac's info and the BC Geographic Names website are similar. This suggests that Bivouac's infomation is possibly reliable, therefore they're both accurate. Black Tusk 01:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a well developed article, especially the Geology sections. I don't know the area, but I have a few concerns about the article's comprehensiveness.

  1. Indigenous people: At present there are two short, somewhat repetitive paragraphs on the indigenous people, mainly discussing what they call the mountain. There isn't anything on how they use the area, and little on why it's important to them. Concerns have been raised about this on the talk page, but I don't see that they've been addressed.
  2. Flora and fauna: What animals and plants might one find in the area, and especially on the mountain? Is this typical of the region, or distinctive in any way? How high is the treeline?
  3. Volcanic hazards: The article outlines many potential hazards of volcanic activity here. In light of this, some statement about how these risks are managed might be appropriate. Is there any monitoring for seismic activity?

I'm also dubious about the copyright status of the recently added topographic map. The flickr license checks out, but do we have any evidence that the uploader there has any right to license it? It looks like a government product; at the bottom, there's a reference to the Surveys and Mapping Branch of something. I agree a map of the area and nearby peaks would be nice, but I'm not sure about this one. (The map of the volcanic belt is wonderful, by the way.) -- Avenue (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Avenue. I was going to add some infomation about the flora and fauna in the area, but I haven't had time. I was plaining on expanding the "Glaciers and Icefields" section, which is too short. I'm not sure if there's any monitoring for seismic activity; perhaps that's how they know about the seismic activity in the area since the earthquakes seem to be small. User:OldManRivers has mentioned he is going to add more infomation about the Skwxwu7mesh since it's obviously lacking. Black Tusk 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: New section added about volcano monitoring with a good start. Black Tusk 20:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that addresses that point. I've reworded the new text as it seemed to be nearly a verbatim copy of the source. -- Avenue (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Tusk, it would be helpful to my pea brain if you would stop prefacing your comments with Support, as that has specific meaning on a FAC (see WP:FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's how the English language works. Support means to give active help and encouragement. It's not my fault Wikipedia has such awkward rules that demonstrate the English language incorrectly. Therefore I will never comment on this page again. If you have a problem deal with it. Black Tusk 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's right. What kind of standards is this? If he wants to put support, he can put support. Its not something you should be arguing over. ~Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mount_Garibaldi/archive1&oldid=1138467237"