Talk:Mount Greylock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Mount Greylock was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 22, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
August 27, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Transmission tower[edit]

Corrected information: WNYA-TV was listed as transmitting from the WCDC-TV tower on this page. It does not. It transmits from a small tower on Berry Mountain in the Pittsfield State Forest. The second antenna on the WCDC tower on Mt Greylock is W38DL, a low power translator for WNYT-TV. (Information updated on the main page). Mike/NECRAT.

Revisions[edit]

Revising w/ references over the next few days. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

newbie seeks editing assist????[edit]

I logged in but was unable to decipher the editing process ( yeah, i'm completely new at this computer thing) so I hope someone will read this and make a small correction to the Mount Greylock article for accuracy sake, thanks. The article states that the average prominence of the peak above its surrounding river valleys is only 2000 feet, but anyone who knows the area as well as I, or who bothers to check the USGS Topographic maps for this quadrant, can see that the surrounding river valleys range from very slightly above 700 feet MSL to just below 700 feet MSL. In other words, at 3491 feet MSL, the peak has an average prominence of about 2800 feet above its surrounding river valleys. Please, let's not diminish the easily verifiable grandeur of it's prominence with a careless oversight. Those of us who enjoy the good health to climb it regularly know too well the vertical ascent/descent from the river valley floors on all sides of our mountain. Other than that, I applaud the authors and editors who've provided such a great account of "my backyard". Thanks, see ya out there. Eagleswatchhim (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a quick look at the USGS topo maps confirms that the valley floor is at 968 feet at Cheshire Reservoir due south of Greylock, 1296 feet at the Green River to the west, 761 feet at the Hoosac River to the east, and 620 feet at the Hoosac (again) to the north. I'm not sure where our original 2000-foot figure came from, but clearly Greylock's prominence above the surrounding valleys is more like 2500 feet, not 2000 feet. Would it be considered OR to revise this based solely on one's own ability to read a USGS topo map? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm back--just noticed that the 395-meter elevation I was reading for the Green River is a typo--based on the contours it has to be 295 meters, or 968 feet. So our 2000-foot prominence figure is even more wrong than I'd guessed at first. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Review done. This is now a good article. Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Review abandoned as per WT:Good article nominations#Mount Greylock. New reviewer please start under here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Criteria[edit]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: - Mostly.
    C. No original research: -probably not
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: -<l>No edit wars but plenty of vandalism</l> None in last 60 days.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

It looks good to go. Mr. R00t Talk 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I signed up to do the GA review, but I gave up- I realized I'd rather focus on other things. Is anyone willing to do it?? Us441(talk) (contribs) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mount Greylock/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm nominating this article for a reassessment, partially because the GA review initiated by User:1234r00t was completed in a mere 16 minutes (see [1] and [2]) in what seemed to be a rush to get the nomination out of the backlog, and because I found numerous MoS issues, reference style issues, prose concerns, and over-linking in only a minute of skimming through it. The review was, in a nutshell, irresponsibly handled. I'm not saying that the article does not deserve it, however; but it definitely needs a proper lookover.

My quick review of the article:

Prose:

  • "...where stands the iconic 93-foot (28 m) high lighthouse-like Massachusetts Veterans War Memorial Tower." -> Add |adj=mid|-long bridge to the convert template to get "93-foot-high (28 m)".
  • "Mount Greylock is composed of a north-south oriented central ridge..." -> North-south?
  • First paragraph of Geography needs to be more prose-like, less list-like.
  • "Geographically, Mount Greylock forms an 11-mile (18 km) long by 4.5-mile (7.2 km) wide island-like range..." -> Add code to the convert template again, per point #1.
  • "...the Berkshires to the south and east..." -> You mean southeast?
  • The words "flanked" and "thence" are used a little too often in the final paragraph of the Geography section. Replace with a quick synonym (I'm not awake enough to suggest one for flanked).
  • "Mount Greylock is the product of thrust faulting, a tectonic process by which older rock is thrust up and above younger rock during periods of intense mountain building." -> Aren't they all? (That's a legitimate question.)
    • No, thrust faulting is quite rare: mostly younger rock stays on top of older rock. —hike395 (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Mount Greylock and the surrounding region were covered by ice sheets up to 1-kilometer (0.62 mi) thick." -> Replace with "in thickness".
  • "...including a 120-foot (37 m) tall red spruce." -> Point #1.
  • "...climbed Mount Greylock several times. His experiences here, especially a walk..." -> "Here" to "there". "Especially" to "specifically".
  • "Along with this came devastating forest fires and landslides. Following a devastating forest fire..." -> Consider an alternative to using "devastating forest fire" twice.
  • "Legislation was filed by William H. Chase, Editor of the Berkshire Sunday Democrat..." -> Editor should be de-capitalized.
  • "This included supporting testimony from Williams College Professor of Geology T. Nelson Dale..." -> Likewise for "professor of geology" (or geology professor).
  • Multiple issues with the final paragraph of "1800s" (slashes, italics usage, and excessive parentheses).
  • "As a result of increased popularity of winter recreation and downhill skiing the Mount Greylock Ski Club initiated a plan to create a challenging ski run on Mount Greylock." -> Missing a comma. Occurs a few times in the article with sub-ordinate clauses (By 1929, By the late nineteenth century...).

MoS:

  • Add |abbr=none|lk=on to first instances of measurement units, |abbr=on to the rest.
  • "The mountain is known for its expansive views encompassing five states and the only taiga/boreal forest in the state." -> MOS:SLASH (another occurrence in Forests and old growth)
  • "A network of hiking trails traverse..." -> Delink hiking.
  • Remove the excessive bolding throughout the article.
  • Serial commas are not consistent throughout the article. Some have a comma before the "and", some don't (MOS:SERIAL).
  • "Gray Lock (c.1670-1750) was a Western Abenaki Missisquoi chief of Woronoco/Pocomtuc ancestry..." -> MOS:SLASH again. Space after "circa".
  • "Melville dedicated his next novel, Pierre," -> Italics on the book per MOS:ITALIC, the full title of the book (Pierre: or, The Ambiguities) is probably better to use.
  • "Aside from shares to fund its operation, the GPA charged a 25-cent toll for the carriage road and a 10-cent fee to ascend the iron observation tower (built 1889)." -> This would be a perfect time to use the Inflation template.
    • Neat. I didn't know about this template. —hike395 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "By the winter of 1897..." -> I suggest using "By early-1897..." per WP:SEASON.
  • "It was opened to the public on September 16, 1907, running “through six farms (and one or two cattle passes), passing Round’s Rock, a fine view point, and throughout its entire distance affords unsurpassed views of Berkshire hills and valleys lying to the south and west of the reservation." -> Curly quotes should be replaced with straight ones, quotation itself is missing an end quotation mark.
  • "But due to disputes between the local Berkshire Hills Conference trail group and the outsider Appalachian Trail Conference/Appalachian Mountain Club Berkshire Chapter" -> Slashes. This case it could be replaced with "and".

References:

  • There is a [citation needed] tag in the infobox.
  • Final paragraph of Early history seems to be original research, or at the least, is completely based on assumptions.
  • Many references use a vague method for newspaper articles. I recommend using the Cite template.
  • Ref #1, 16 is dead.
  • Some refs have insufficient info (no title, publisher, access date, publishing date)
  • References' date formats are inconsistent.

Criterion 3:

  • 3b.: Is the excessive amount of accounts for summitting the mountain really a part of the mountain's history? (Section: 1800s)

NPOV:

  • "The greatest period of development on Mount Greylock occurred in the 1930s." -> Is this neutral?

All I can do right now. Anyhow, it has many problems which have never been addressed, and in a nutshell, it does not currently qualify as a GA. Should be de-listed and have its review continued. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Article has been de-listed. Editors wishing to further the progress of this article may do so with the use of these comments. Cross out and question them as you please, as I am watching the page. Regards. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 16:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question on Mountain Range[edit]

I’m not sure Mount Greylock is in the Taconic Mountains. Please check your sources. Thanks! --I love the interweb! (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please see Taconic Mountains for 3 references as well as a map showing Mount Greylock as part of the eastern Taconic Range. Also, I personally know from the plaques at the summit that Greylock is in the Taconics (hiked the peak 3-4 times). Please check your assumptions. Thanks! -28 May 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.183.13.16 (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

1819 date[edit]

In the naming section it claims "It first appeared in print about 1819, and came into popular use by the 1830s." Do we have a reference for that, or know where it was that it first appeared?121.74.233.34 (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ability to see into five states[edit]

The article states that "views of up to 70–135 mi (113–217 km) are possible". WolframAlpha says that at an elevation of 3491 ft, the horizon is 72.4 miles away. That is enough to see into Connecticut (42 miles away and the furthest distance), but unless there are specific features that otherwise rise above the horizon, seeing 80+ miles is impossible from the summit. 70.186.139.54 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mount Greylock/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 cannot recommend it for B class since it has no citations at present. RedWolf 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Much better now with inline citations. Should use the {{cite web}} citation template rather than raw HTML. Needs a citation for the prominence. RedWolf (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)