Wikipedia:Peer review/Snowdon/archive1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in the hope of pushing it towards GA status.

Thanks, Stemonitis (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... at an altitude of 1,085 metres ..."
"With" or "at"? I imagine that if we talk about "at", then the mountain's base would be at that level. Or should it not be "... with a height of 1,085 metres ..."?

That would be a bizarre reading. When talking about the heights of mountains without further qualification, one is almost invariably talking about the altitude of the summit, not the base. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The routes are arranged here anticlockwise, starting with the path leading from Llanberis. During winter, all these routes become significantly more difficult and many inexperienced walkers have been killed over the years attempting to climb the mountain via the main paths."
What is the source for this? For GA or better, statements such as this would need to be cited to a reliable source.

All replaced with printed books. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into getting an alternative image. None of the examples on the Commons really fits the bill. I'll get back to you on this one. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:WalesGwynedd.png: What is the base map or source of physical data for this map? Is the source in the public domain or licensed for "free" use?~~

I don't know. The earliest edit is by User:Morwen (no longer very active here), who released it under GFDL. It is a very widely used image on en.wiki, cy.wiki and elsewhere, so if there is a problem with it, I think it would probably transcend this peer review. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how this will "transcend" this peer review, but this project has had long-standing articles that do not have sources, are undoubtedly biased to a certain viewpoint, contain copyright violations, etc. Their violations are not overlooked, when the time comes for examination, just because they exist in such a state for a long time. In this case, the image is an information that requires sources to verify. Are the geographical details correct? Are the boundary lines consistent with what has been represented? Sources are needed to verify these per WP:V. Jappalang (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was only that if there is a problem with that file, it will be a problem for hundreds of articles, not just this one. I'm not saying it's not a problem, just that it isn't a problem specifically relating to this article, and probably isn't something I can fix on my own. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then, rather than further propagating a problematic file, one could choose not to use it, or look for or create an alternative that better complies with the project's requirements. Jappalang (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I still think a bigger problem needs a bigger solution, but it is at least fixed for this article (and one other). --Stemonitis (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In effect, the elevations are ultimately from OS mapping, but indirectly, they are from the various articles on Welsh mountains on en.wiki. Is this a problem? --Stemonitis (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the first, these issues are what I see so far as obstacles to obtaining GA. Jappalang (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]