Wikipedia:Peer review/Rock climbing/archive1

Rock climbing

I've listed this article for peer review because I am interested in all things climbing and this is an important 'head article' on the topic that covers many sub-topics and concepts, almost all of which I have tried to link into this article.

It had fallen into poor shape so I decided to try and improve it (I have been bringing the main sub-topic articles up to standard). The subject matter is reasonably stable, as the only developments in rock climbing are new "hardest" routes that only happen every decade, or the creation of new sub-disciplines, which have not happened for over twenty years. The sport continues to expand globally and is now in the Olympics.

Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jens

• Generally, this seems to be in good shape. If you like to nominate this at WP:FAC, I think that covering different areas around the world is necessary, as well as a "Cultural impact" section (at the moment, there is only a list "In film", that that should be text). It helps to look at existing FAs to see what the expectations are, such as Baseball. Note that the "history" section in that article has a much broader scope, including a section "Around the world". Also notice the "Popularity and cultural impact" section, again with subsections on different parts of the world, and the "In popular culture" subsection (that is just text, not a list of movies). If the article fails at FAC, then it is probably because coverage of these aspects are weak, and a strong bias on Europe/US may not be accepted there.

• I understand what you are saying and let me think about how to build this as a section. There is probably less on the 'cultural' impact of rock climbing as it is still a newish sport, however, it is growing quite fast now (e.g. The Guardian, Forbes), and I could cover its global growth.

• The listing of particular websites and magazines in-text will probably be questioned at FAC, too. I see that these mentions have practical value, but remember that we are an Encyclopedia, and this level of detail might be better placed in the main article Climbing guidebook, unless they are really pertinent to the topic.

• Understand. I had a great academic paper done on climbing media but could not find it when I was writing the article; if I can't find a high-quality coverage of this, I will take these out.

• Make sure that everything is covered by the cited sources. For example, this sentence is only partly covered: Important new first ascents are also chronicled in specialist rock climbing media, including climbing magazines such as Alpinist, Climbing, Desnivel (in Spanish), Grimper [fr] (in French), Klettern [de] (in German), Outside, and on major climbing websites — several of which that were former magazines — such as PlanetMountain (Italian-based site), Gripped (Canadian-based site), and UKClimbing (UK-based site).[31] – The source [31] does not seem to mention those websites and some of the magazines, or the fact that they were former magazines and so on. If there is no source that lists the most important websites, that would be another argument not to mention specific ones at all (making an own selection here is already fishy). At FAC, there will be a spotcheck – a sample of sources will be checked for text-source integrity.

  Understand. Per above, was missing a very good source I had on this, but can't find it. Your point is well made and will give the article a good run-through for source-checking and make sure that it is tight.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Great comments as always Jens. Let me have a longer look at addressing the first one, which I think is important and will take me a little more time. I will ping you again if that is okay when I have updated it. Thanks again, Aszx5000 (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)