Talk:Pinkham Notch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the New Hampshire Mountains WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Hampshire's mountains. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Pinkham Notch has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Pinkham Notch has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. This article is specifically about a mountain pass. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

• Removed stub-tag, as it's big enough. -- 69.177.53.201 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• As suggested, I changed the recreation section because it reads too much like a travel guide. -- 69.177.53.201 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

1. It is well written. Pass. In fact, it's excellent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fail.

Unlike other encyclopedias, which are written by experts or professional editors, with kids to feed and reputations to be protected, Wikipedia is written by people who are anonymous. Because of this, Wikipedia doesn't even attempt to assure readers that their articles are true; instead it aspires that everything be verifiable. There will be few readers who look at all 80 citations an article may have, although a 9th-grader working on a science project may do exactly that. What is more common is that someone will click on several links, auditing the article to see if it can be trusted.

If it takes 2 hours and 58 minutes to write a paragraph (you folks obviously did NOT just dash this article off the top of your heads), adding cites as you write it means it takes 3 hours and 2 minutes. After all, the material is right in front of you. Trying to add cites later is likely to take another hour, because you can't remember where everything came from. I'm sorry for that, but there are no Special Olympics for Wikipedia articles. It's either good, or it's not good. Or, as Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it, unless it has proper citations, it's not acceptable.

I recommend using footnotes. You simply click on the <ref></ref> in blue below the edit window, and the <ref></ref> appears in the article, with the cursor smack-dab in the middle, ready for you to type. A good way to format URL is <ref>Title of page by author [http://urlhere http://urlhere], retrieved September 23, 2006</ref>. That's not the only style that's acceptable, but it's fairlyl easy. Most web pages don't list an author, and you can omit it if it does. Title can be pretty flexible. Pasting the URL in twice, the first one says where to go if clicked, and the second one lets the user see where he would go if he clicked it. Putting the date there lets the user search for the page on the Wayback Machine (http://archive.org) if the page disappears to the kingdom of 404.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass.

5. It is stable. Marginal but Pass.

The big thing is edit wars. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but part of the idea is that if the article has been changing rapidly, it probably will continue to change a lot, so let's wait until the article matures before we assess it.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Pass.

It'd be nice if the images were a little larger, though.

Looks like it would be a great article, if you had citations. While it would appear that this is not a controversial subject, in fact, tourism is a big industry, and when there's a lot of money involved, trust is a big issue. I hope you continue to improve this article. It certainly looks like it's worth the effort. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 16:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The article has now been given sufficient inline citations. On the basis of this review, I will pass it as a good article. Choess 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I agree for Choess. It's really nice to see such a fine piece of work as this article. You should be proud. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transversed By

Although the Appalachian Trail is in the notch, it does not transverse its length, or provide passage through the notch itself. NH 16 runs through it in its entirety, and connects the two areas on either side of the pass. If you think it still should belong,however, go ahead and change it back. I don't mind. -- Sturgeonman 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine. But "The trails in Pinkham Notch are part of the 2,000-mile Appalachian Trail system,..." makes it sound as if all the trails are part of the AT. I'm not crazy about my previous sentence either, though. Maybe "the Appalachian Trail, a 2,000-mile hiking path from Georgia to Maine, crosses Pinkham Notch between Washington and Wildcat." Or something. —wwoods 16:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll fix it. -- Sturgeonman 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)