Talk:Lists of mountains and hills in the British Isles/GA1

I'll have a look at this one. It may take me a while to start it and/or work through it. You a bagger Britishfinance? I shall probably do a little copy editing as I read; let me know if I mess anything up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I have bagged many of the British ones (less so in Ireland) :) Thanks for taking on the review. I have got through a few GAs lately and am going to go through this again tomorrow to apply some of the feedback to date, so take your time. thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Scafell Pike image caption: "the 138th-highest mountain on the Marilyn classification ... It is also classed as a Marilyn" Delete the second "Marilyn".
 * "File:Pillar and Rock.jpg" The source is dead.
 * ✅; changing this picture per advice below.
 * "File:Doolough - MweelRea.JPG" I don't, personally, like this photograph. Is the summit in view?
 * ✅, have put in a better picture of this mountain
 * Pillar Rock caption: "the only Birkett that requires ropes to climb" Does that not depend on ones skill/attitude to risk? Perhaps 'where the use of ropes is advised'? And source it.
 * ✅, changed wording and added better reference
 * Images of both Pillar and Pillar Rock seems a bit much. Perhaps replace one with something from the south of England?
 * ✅, have given more interesting pics for Marilyns showing the variations
 * ✅, have given more interesting pics for Marilyns showing the variations

You ready for me to start the serious stuff? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Been tidying up the article further, but need to make a final fix.  Very busy in RL should be done on in the next day or so.  will ping you when done, and thank for your patience (and comments above, which I will also fix).  Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no hurry from my point of view. Take your time. (I posted a GAN at 17:19 yesterday; at 16:22 today it was signed off! There must be a drive on.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , have been able to further tidy up the article, and made those changes above (which were very helpful). Ready for your review, and thanks again for your patience. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I note that you use "metric feet", eg "49.21 ft"> Is this reflected in the sources? (If not, '|ftin' is your friend.)
 * , the sources usually don't convert, however, where they do it is usually metric.
 * "in Great Britain and Ireland it is often taken to be any summit at least 2,000 feet (or 610 metres) high". "often" or 'usually'?
 * Link "freedom of access" to Freedom to roam.
 * ✅, good spot
 * "confirmed to be almost exactly 2,000 ft, 6 millimetres above the 609.6 m threshold for a 2,000 ft peak" This is ungrammatical. Suggest deleting "almost exactly 2,000 ft,"
 * "Regardless of the technical definition of a mountain, cultural norms also feature, with mountains in Scotland being frequently referred to as hills irrespective of their height, examples being the Cuillin Hills and the Torridon Hills." 1. I am not sure why this is a separate paragraph 2. suggest replacing the last comma with either a full stop or a semi colon/
 * ✅ on colon; have as a separate paragraph as it is a different concept from the earlier paragraph?
 * What does "with subs and deletions" mean?
 * ✅, deleted as not needed
 * "The DoBIH has had a data-sharing agreement with the Irish online database of mountains and hills since 2012; this is called MountainViews" Is it the agreement or the Irish database which is called MountainViews?
 * ✅, it is the database, have fixed the sentance.
 * "refined from 2004–2006" Suggest 'refined between 2004 and 2006'.
 * "Dawson initially used a 2,000 ft metric (or 610 m, the P610s), and called his list the "Majors", as it is one of the shortest of the classification lists of mountains in the British Isles, having some of the most testing threshold requirements." 1. I don't see why "as it is" 2. Maybe split into two sentences?
 * ✅, used a semi-colon and reworked sentence.
 * "e.g. "Super-Majors" This term seems to come from nowhere, and needs explaining. Possibly replace with something like 'and are known as "Super-Majors"'?
 * The titles of all books, or similar works, should be in italics; eg More Relative Hills of Britain or The Database of British and Irish Hills.
 * "50 ft drop with assistance from Rev CRP Vandeleur. Lynam updated a version of this list and published it in a reprint of "Mountaineering in Ireland" by Claude Wall, printed in 1976, and the fully metricised equivalent was published in 1997" This shows red in Earwig. Could you tweak it a little?
 * "The name was coined as a humorous contrast to the designation Munro, which is homophonous with [Marilyn] Monroe." I am being tedious, but this is so likely to attract attention that I'd like you to put the source(s) immediately after it.
 * "As of April 2020, there are" Don't forget to change either April or are in four days time.
 * It's not a GA criteria, but the scattering of bold type for emphasis is a bit disconcerting.
 * , I have confined the bold-type to names of lists (most of which have their own sub-articles, or re-direct to this head article)? I thought it would be helpful?
 * MOS:NOBOLD would suggest not. But it doesn't apply at GA, so it'e your choice.
 * "The name was coined as a humorous contrast to the designation Munro, which is homophonous with [Marilyn] Monroe." I am being tedious, but this is so likely to attract attention that I'd like you to put the source(s) immediately after it.
 * "As of April 2020, there are" Don't forget to change either April or are in four days time.
 * It's not a GA criteria, but the scattering of bold type for emphasis is a bit disconcerting.
 * , I have confined the bold-type to names of lists (most of which have their own sub-articles, or re-direct to this head article)? I thought it would be helpful?
 * MOS:NOBOLD would suggest not. But it doesn't apply at GA, so it'e your choice.
 * It's not a GA criteria, but the scattering of bold type for emphasis is a bit disconcerting.
 * , I have confined the bold-type to names of lists (most of which have their own sub-articles, or re-direct to this head article)? I thought it would be helpful?
 * MOS:NOBOLD would suggest not. But it doesn't apply at GA, so it'e your choice.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that Gog the Mild, very helpful. Hopefully, I have been able to address most of the above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "54 meet the 600 metres (1,969 ft) in prominence to be P600s." Word missing after prominebce" Maybe 'threshold'?
 * ✅, fixed sentence
 * "was in line with the 1994 UIAA declaration that an "independent peak" had to have" Possibly 'is' and 'has'? Unless the rules have since changed.
 * ✅, you are right
 * "as of April 2020 contained 219 hills ... The number of Grahams was reduced from 224, following surveys in 2014 that showed Corwharn, Ben Aslak and Ladylea Hill" You need to also give the names of the other two. (Or give details of none.)
 * ✅, have fleshed this out further and added a ref
 * "The Scottish Mountaineering Club ("SMC")" The abbreviation should be given in brackets at first mention, and no need for the inverted commas.
 * "the Irish list is by Clem Clements" Compiled by, maintained by, or both?
 * ✅, compiled and maintained
 * "The list addresses one of the criticisms of the Nuttalls ... " You can't say this, as readers will not yet have go to Nuttalls, and so won't know what you are talking about. (Maybe swap the section order?)
 * ✅, want to leave the section order in place (they fit as subsets), however, have removed the "criticism" part, which is in the Nuttall section anyway.
 * "(DoBIH)" If you introduce this in italics in its first abbreviated mention (which I believe is correct) all subsequent mentions should also be in brackets.
 * ✅, I think you meant "in italics" at the end?
 * I did, I did.
 * I did, I did.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Simms have replaced Hewitts" This would come as a shock to a number of baggers I know, and seems PoV to me. Personally, I would delete "Simms have replaced Hewitts, however," but I can live with it if you prfer not to.
 * ✅, deleted as I think you are right. The DoBIH is more focused on SIMMs (vs. Hewitts) but that does not definitively mean they are any less important amongst climbers.
 * "...the peaks of all of the Nuttalls can be reached without resort to rock climbing. As of October 2018, 302 people are known to have completed the list" It seems incongruous that the climbing information and the number of compleaters is given here, but not for most of the lists above - if only to say that it is not known/recorded. (If I were boing picky, which I'm not, I would quibble with "known" → 'generally known', or recorded as'.)
 * ✅, fixed to "recorded as", good point re having compleaters here but not elsewhere. The main article on each classification (e.g. List of Graham mountains in Scotland, or List of P600 mountains in the British Isles) gives this mention where available.
 * "need not be climbed" For this paragraph only can I suggest switching "climbed" for a synonym, to avoid confusion?
 * ✅, used "summited"


 * "(locally known as fells)" Why the italics?
 * ✅, fair point
 * "The Birketts are all the fell tops over 1,000 feet (304.8 m) within the boundaries of the Lake District National Park." Suggest deleting "fell".
 * "which has also become popular to use in Ireland." I am not sure what "to use" means in this context and would suggest deleting it.
 * ✅, agreed
 * Carns: mention their prominence in the main description, not just in the bracketed summary.
 * "and 5 in Manx" Is "Manx" a place?
 * ✅, replace with "Isle of Man"
 * "like the Donald classification" Suggest "like" →'similar to'.
 * Note a: I see no reason to include "(Snaefell, four other § Marilyns, etc)".
 * Cites 43, 45, 56, 7579, 100, 109, 112 and 114 should give publisher location.
 * Note a: I see no reason to include "(Snaefell, four other § Marilyns, etc)".
 * Cites 43, 45, 56, 7579, 100, 109, 112 and 114 should give publisher location.
 * Cites 43, 45, 56, 7579, 100, 109, 112 and 114 should give publisher location.
 * Cites 43, 45, 56, 7579, 100, 109, 112 and 114 should give publisher location.

And that may be all. Very nice job on an inherently complex topic. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it was a challenge, but thanks so much for your comments and time spent on it. Look forward to hearing from you. Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt and responsive edits. A damn fine article. Promoting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, and many thanks for review and comments. Do you think this kind of article could become a Featured List type article? Britishfinance (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not familiar with Featured Lists, and had not been regarding this article as a list; I had considered, and still consider it to be an article about a set of lists. I note that lists cannot be Good Articles. You may want to seek advice from editors more experienced in lists regarding this. is conversant with both and may be prepared to venture an opinion.
 * In my opinion, the article has the wherewithal to become a Featured 'Article with more work, but if you have not been to FAC before, bear in mind that it is a tough standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and appreciate the response. You are right, I have not made it to FAC as yet.  Probably don't have the time now to do the work on it, but perhaps might come back to you in the future on it to get some further input?  thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By all means. My first advice is that this is not a good article for a first FAC. Maybe try something more straight forward such as Munro, or even peak bagging first? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)