Talk:Humbug Mountain

Comment
wow, i just drove through there last month - i even took a picture of it. neat-o to find it on wikipedia!! Kingturtle 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Tidy up references
This article needs some tidying up of the references. For example Views of the Pacific Ocean can be seen from the grassy summit. is followed by no less than 6 inline citations. This is surely not such a controversial point that it needs 6 different references to back it up. This is after all a mountain by the Pacific Ocean. Is it controvershal that the summit is grassy? The over referencing just becomes impenetrable. Polargeo (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just adding all references that contain that information. I'm not exactly sure which ones to remove and which ones to keep, since they all state mostly the same info. Any suggestions?  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  20:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added this section before I took the plunge to review the article. This point doesn't fail the article for GA status at all. It is just my own point of view, feel free to disagree. Having such long lists of inline citations when not necessary is a little distracting. If you can just tone it down to the most relevent 2 or 3 of the references in each inline citation that would be better. Unless it is a vital point you are reinforcing or something people may question, in that case a list of 6 inline references may be entirely appropriate. As most of the references are unobtainable to me I can't really do this. Polargeo (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another related point is the over use of wikilinks. It struck me when I first looked at the article but I forgot to mention it then. This is particularly noticeable in the lead section and the flora and fauna section. It distracts from the reading. Several things that don't need links include mountains (mountains could be in a see also section) campground, hikers, spring, plants, trees, birds, berries, beach etc. If the reader doesn't know what you mean then they probably cannot read the article anyway. Check MOS. I would be happy to correct this myself at any point but I don't want to tread on toes while the article is being improved. Polargeo (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [ Done.] Thanks!  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tourism
Not that there is any information on the page that shouldn't be here but in places the article reads a little bit like a tourist brochure. It just needs to be reworded a bit to read more like an encyclopedic article. I don't necessarily think this comes in the way of obtaining GA status. Polargeo (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me what are the problem sections, or is it the whole article? Thanks,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I added this before deciding to review the article. Also the article doesn't fail to meet GA criteria based on this. Re-reading the article it is certainly only a very small amount of the article. One bit that stands out is the views from the grassy summit. Yes say it has a grassy summit and yes say it has a good panoramic view of the pacific ocean. Or directly quote the brochure. ie. The Mountina Parks Organisation state 'The moutnain has wonderful views from its soft grassy summit.' Hiking to this summit is a big tourist attraction with XX hikers making the trip every summer ref ref etc.


 * Following on from this. The article is mostly well written but some of the text does look a bit like it has been taken from the guide books. I cannot check this out but it may be worth carefully checking to make sure if direct quotes are used they are properly referenced with quotation marks and the particular guide book/organisation mentioned in the text. Or alter the text enough so that it is an original summary of the books. Essentially there could be a copyright issue. Sorry if you've already done this and you write a very good standard of prose.Polargeo (talk) 06:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there isn't a very good view from the top, at least not two weeks ago: the meadow is there, but the trees have grown up around it so that very little ocean is visible.  There's one thinnish gap in the trees where maybe 10 degrees of the panorama shows water.  Even that's not so good:  the ocean is visible from like one mile out to the horizon.  The view of the mountain/ocean interface isn't visible anywhere.  See photos.  Feel free to add to the article if you think it's helpful.  —EncMstr (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Polargeo: Thanks for the suggestions. As for the copyright issue, I did not copy any text from any guide books, I did summarize. But thanks for checking. :) And also, thanks for taking the time to review the article.
 * @EncMstr: What should I do about that? Is there any way to cite a photo or first hand experience? Thanks,  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is a bit creative, but fulfills the purpose of a citation. "There is no view at the top.&lt;ref> See photo [ [:file:photo]] "
 * Another way is to assert the fact and see if challengers appear before thinking about a citation. —EncMstr (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been a major logging off of the top --and so now there is a view from the top. 2600:6C55:6700:1A8A:DCDA:5D27:354D:8643 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Great to see some images from the summit. Another thing I thought is the flora / Fauna section/ it should be fairly easy to dig out a nice image of one of the most common animals or flowers that grow on the mountin. Polargeo (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, both of you.  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For flora, I added another photo (right) showing the typical character of the forest canopy and undergrowth. The trees are surprisingly immense.  I also took an unremarkable photo of a Trillium around here.  —EncMstr (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Those are great pictures, by the way. :)  L ITTLE M OUNTAIN  5  22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)