Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joppenbergh Mountain/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 13:56, 28 July 2011.

Joppenbergh Mountain

 * Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

After several months of locating sources, I feel this article is now comprehensive enough to be a FA. This often-misspelled mountain was blasted apart in the 19th century, skied on in the 20th, and could very well become public property in the 21st. Gyrobo (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 16: is this a typo?
 * Are page numbers or weblinks available for print newspaper articles?
 * Ref 6: retrieval date?
 * I seem to recall discussing this with you before, but remind me: why do some newspaper refs include publishers and others not?
 * Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
 * Genero title should use endash, not hyphen
 * Don't use UCH as both author and publisher
 * Genero appears to be self-published - could you provide a brief description of his background and qualifications? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 16 was a typo, fixed.
 * There were some page numbers listed for the NYT refs, but half of them appeared to be server errors so I thought it best not to include them.
 * I was actually working from a hard copy, the online version is behind a paywall.
 * There were two New Paltz newspapers with the same name, so I started adding publishers where I could find them. Most of the print articles I read were clippings in the Rosendale Library's archive, and did not include page numbers.
 * The Genero ref was being given a double period due to the citation template, fixed.
 * I changed to an en dash in the Genero and Ulster County Historians refs.
 * The UCH book and all references to it say the UCH were both the author and publisher.
 * The Genero book is featured in this 2005 newsletter from the Century House Historical Society in Rosendale, and it's also on the New Paltz-based Huguenot Historical Society site. I can't find much on Genero himself, but if the local historical societies find no faults with the book (and since it doesn't make any controversial claims), I feel it's reliable here. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is uncontroversial, so I guess that's fine. Sourcing looks better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments RedWolf (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No reference is given for the coordinates in the infobox (there is a coordinates_ref parameter for this).
 * No prominence is given. This might help to sway the argument for/against it being called a mountain. Given it's meager elevation, I might be inclined to call it a hill.
 * A USGS GNIS search does not find anything for either "Joppenbergh Mountain" or "Joppenbergh". Perhaps USGS does not consider it a topographical feature deserving of mountain status? Or is there any other known official name?
 * I have a waymarking source with coordinates, but those are really for the sign at the base of the mountain. I could probably reference the topo map, but it doesn't explicitly identify Joppenbergh.
 * I haven't been able to find a ref for Joppenbergh's prominence, just that it's 495 ft tall.
 * All the sources I've found refer to it as a mountain. If there was a USGS, or any other geologic source that said something along the lines of Joppenbergh being technically a hill, I'd definitely include the misnomer in the Name section. I was hoping that with the whole OSI purchase going on, there would be more information available on Joppenbergh's geology and topography.
 * --Gyrobo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not having this feature named on a topo map definitely makes it more of a challenge. The coordinates are usually given for the summit and not for the base. I guess one could take a GPS reading themselves although this is not something that is normally done. As for the name, how does one go from Jacob Rutsen to Joppenbergh? I don't quite follow the transformation. RedWolf (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that it's a Dutch transliteration, and I'm going to try and get to the Rosendale Library today to review one of the references that may say exactly that. It's been a few months since I've been there, so maybe the librarians have turned up something new (or rather, very old). --Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked the ref on microfiche at the New Paltz Library, and while it contained a great deal of information on Jacob Rutsen, it didn't mention Joppenbergh beyond the fact that it was named after him. However, I found this stereoscope on Commons that may be of Joppenbergh, because it's grouped with several Rosendale-area photos. The name probably started with "Job" as a shorthand of Jacob (hence the old reference to a Jobsenbright) and the Dutch word for mountain, "berg". --Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – From the Name section: "Joppenburgh is named after Colonel Jacob Rutsen. Rutsen...". Try not to have this repetition from one sentence to another.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I tweaked the wording slightly. --Gyrobo (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Came back to check this and saw "Rutsen" and "Rusten" here. One of them obviously needs fixing.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 01:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments - Found this article while working on my own nomination and saw that it needed comments, so here's my review.
 * There was a large cave-in on December 19, 1899, that destroyed mining equipment and collapsed shafts within Joppenbergh. - This sentence kind of just appears out of the blue, and it makes for an abrupt change of gears. Also, what caused the cave-in?
 * Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * outside, eating. - Does that comma need to be there? It seems a little heavy, but then it doesn't sound right without it either.
 * Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Linking is good in the lead, but I don't think you need to link parking lot.
 * Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you need to go through the whole article and look for excess usage of commas. Here, for example: and the son of a Dutch immigrant, from Albany
 * I believe the commas that exist in the article are needed to prevent confusion. In this instance, "the son of a Dutch immigrant from Albany" might make people think that his father was a Dutch immigrant who also lived in Albany. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * When did mining stop? What happened between 1899 and 1930?
 * None of the sources I could find said exactly when mining stopped on the mountain, however, during my research for Rosendale Village, New York, I found that only one cement plant operated in the town between 1920 and 1971, when it closed. The problem is that there isn't a very good record from this period. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * between the spring and autumn - why "the spring" but just "autumn"?
 * Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The Rosendale Township Association, founded in 1934 to encourage tourism in the town,[22] "decided to fill the remaining months by promoting winter sports". - I don't think the quote adds anything... I would suggest just paraphrasing into something less forced.
 * Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * wore a helmet and performed in the summer tournament. - is there anything special about his wearing of a helmet?
 * Removed, I thought it was important because they mentioned it explicitly, but now that I think about it, everyone who skies probably uses a helmet. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I love the detailed narration of the skiing events, but Parking was provided for 500 cars. seems a little trivial to me...
 * Removed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "wooden tower slide" - I don't really know what this is, and again, the quote seems a little out of place.
 * I used a direct quote because it also didn't really mean anything to me, but it's probably a ramp. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "many jumpers [to enter] military service" - again; very little paraphrasing would eliminate the need for quotation marks.
 * Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Periodic rockfalls continue to happen on the mountain. - This is kind of basic wording; something a little more engaging would be good.
 * Embellished. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reason why Cellular One didn't build the tower?
 * Added. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall, I like the article, but I do think it needs a little work. I think the use of quotes is a little excessive for only a few-words-long phrases in the middle of sentences. It makes for choppy reading IMO. Also, I would avoid footnotes in the middle of sentences, since they make me feel like I need to mentally pause when I'm reading just the same as a period. Content-wise, I think you might go into a little too much detail on certain things, but I wouldn't worry about it since overall the detail provides a very in-depth and interesting narration. I'm wondering why there isn't more info on the geography of the mountain, like what range it's part of, what formed it, some more dimensions, and a brief description of its layout (maybe flora/fauna would be a little silly for such a localized mountain, but I would still ask if there is any info on animals or plants that especially like this hill. Nice work! Juliancolton (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some places where the refs break up the sentences slightly, but many of the references are used multiple times, making it pretty hard to group them. And if I put them all at the end of sentences, it wouldn't be clear which parts of the sentence were sourced to which ref. The main problem with describing Joppenbergh's ecology and geology is that it simply hasn't been studied. My refs for the age of its rock are talking about the rock of the town, not Joppenbergh specifically, and the only reason its height is known is because Gilchrist read a USGS map of the town and identified the mountain in her work. The USGS itself doesn't seem to have any info on it. The only sourced info I have on fauna are the JMC's lawyer saying something about rattlesnakes, but it's not clear from that if the snakes live on the mountain or just next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - alright, I think you've addressed all of my concerns at this point. Happy to support a very nice article on a local landmark(?). Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. Comments. The article looks in good shape to me; I've made a couple of minor copyedits -- please revert if I messed up anything. I have some minor points below: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see above that you have no sources to explain how Jacob's name became "Joppenbergh". Since the difference is surprising to the reader (it took me aback) how about adding a parenthetical "(despite the apparent difference in the form of the name)" or something along those lines?
 * I'm not sure how to add something like that without it being original research. None of the sources explained the etymological evolution of "Joppenbergh"; it's mainly been just a retelling of this blurb, which is CC-licensed and can be added to the article if need be. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to leave it as is, that's OK, but I don't think you would need additional sources -- you would just be confirming to the reader that this is the case. It would function like a "[sic]" in a quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, and also caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle. The costly cave-in destroyed mining shafts and caused between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage." Starting the second sentence with "costly cave-in" doesn't really add anything since you give the exact damage figure.  How about combining both sentences and shortening as follows: "The collapse rendered the canal and nearby road impassable, caused a boiler explosion that shook the nearby Rosendale trestle, and destroyed mining shafts, causing between $20,000 and $25,000 in damage."  Though in fact you might not even need "destroyed mining shafts" since that's already been mentioned.
 * Rephrased. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much improved. I agree with Ceranthor below that it would be helpful to say if this in 1899 or 2011 dollars: presumably the former, in which case a conversion to present day value would be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Warren Sammons is first mentioned as owner in the 1930s; prior to that time is it known who owned it?
 * The cement companies that operated on the mountain are mentioned, but I haven't seen any records of private ownership. A lot of the old village records were lost during some pretty severe floods in the 1950s. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Regardless of whether or not the town decides to accept the deal, the OSI will purchase Joppenbergh": perhaps better as "the OSI intends to purchase" since we are talking about intentions rather than predictions.
 * Done, I thought it looked off. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the Shawangunk Ridge linked in the see also section? It doesn't seem like something a reader would particularly want to follow up on after reading about Joppenbergh, unless Joppenbergh is part of that ridge in which case the link should be in the article.
 * I have no data to indicate that Joppenbergh is part of the Shawangunk Ridge, but I included it because it passes through Rosendale and I figured that someone reading about a mountain in Rosendale might want to read about another mountain in Rosendale. I have no opinion on the removal of this item. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK -- I won't strike it in case another reviewer has an opinion, but that's fine with me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about giving the date (1704) of the deed referring to the mountain as "Jobsenbright"?
 * I think giving "early 18th century" is better here, because the Name section should have a sense of approximation, in contrast to the History section, where I tried to be as specific as possible in terms of dates and details. If there were multiple deeds from this time period, it would warrant a subsection in History, but as it stands, the fact that the deed was created in 1704 doesn't seem to be as relevant as the general time period. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's my OCD but I hate to have data that I don't put in the article. I see your point though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I spotchecked a few sources, and have a couple of concerns:
 * The 7 March 1938 tournament was still in the future at the time the source was published; it does give that date but given that at least one tournament was cancelled I don't think you can assume that this occurred.
 * Fixed, Good catch, I believe one of the other sources said that a March tournament occurred, but the wording is much more accurate now. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you find that other source, it would be better to be definite, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This source does not appear to support the statement it is cited for, and in any case just appears to be a letter in the paper -- it could be used to cite that certain opinions were expressed, but not much more than that.
 * The source does say that "...the municipal parking and Willow Kiln Park... is a lease", so I don't believe I've misrepresented it. The point about it being a personal letter is valid, though, so I'm going to replace it with this, which mentions "the parking lot and the pocket lot of the park". This ref also mentions the defunct cement kilns of the park, would that all be acceptable, given that there are photos of this area? --Gyrobo (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does say that; sorry, didn't mean to imply you were mis-using the source deliberately. Yes, the proposed replacement seems fine.  As for the cement kilns, I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you planning to add the Shawangunk Journal cite as another reference, for a different sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've switched to support above; the remaining points are minor, except the pending removal of the letter used as a source . An interesting and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck as the source is now removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - Ultimately a well-written article that seems plenty comprehensive. My only niggles are the usage of dolostone -- not sure if you are aware, but the term itself is sort of iffy -- and this bit from the mining section: "The total cost of the damage was estimated to be between $20,000 and $25,000.[16]". Is that current value, or historical value? If it's the former, an estimate of current amounts could be useful for comprehension.  ceran  thor 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will address these issues tonight; at the moment, I'm in Rosendale, taking some photos and looking through old newspaper articles at the Rosendale Library to make sure I haven't missed anything. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've now addressed the remaining points you and Mike Christie raised. I didn't add a conversion to modern currency because there have been past discussions at FAC about the validity of the inflationary value of capital goods. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's totally understandable, as it was just a suggestion after all.  ceran  thor 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Media Review - Everything checks out. I would like to mention that the picture of the parking lot really dosen't do anything for me, though. It's just a parking lot. I'd personally drop it, but it's your choice.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.