Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roxy Ann Peak/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:35, 28 February 2009.

Roxy Ann Peak

 * Nominator(s):  Little Mountain  5  

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is ready, and I don't think there is much more to add. It passed its GAN last November, and was peer reviewed in December. I also want to thank ZabMilenko, Brianboulton, Droll, Backslash Forwardslash, and the many others that have helped with the article. Thanks,  Little Mountain  5   23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.summitpost.org/
 * Current ref 21 (Ashland Trails...) needs a publisher
 * The "Since you Asked" refs .. the publisher is the Mail Tribune, they are just published in the Since you Asked section. Need to change those.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

@Comment 1: It appears to be a site that works a lot like Wikipedia, with users editing pages and things. I'm not sure if it could be considered reliable, however, it is doubled up with a least one other ref each time it appears in the article, so it could be removed if needed.  Little Mountain  5   02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's like a wiki, then no, it's not reliable, and should be removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed.  Little Mountain  5   02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

@Comment 2: Fixed. Little Mountain 5 Happy Valentine's Day! 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC) @Comment 3: Fixed. Little Mountain 5 Happy Valentine's Day! 23:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now by karanascs. I'm concerned about the sourcing level in this article. Some of it is sourced to self-published websites, and much of it is sourced to the local newspaper. Are there any academic studies about the mountain? Any more information on the effects of tourism on the mountain (either ecological or financial)? Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't geology be before history, since the first part of the geology section is about the history of the mountain's formation?
 * The unique rounded top and the height create a landmark distinguishable from as far away as Ashland, Oregon and the Siskiyou Pass on Interstate 5 - how far away are those? I'm not familiar with Oregon geography
 * Can we elaborate on the "recent evidence" that the mountain might not be volcanic?
 * The fact that the mountain is part of the Cascades is not mentioned in the article body
 * The website of a bowling alley (http://www.roxyannlanes.com/html/about.html) is absolutely not a reliable source for any part of this article
 * A large part of the article seems sourced to the Prescott Park brochure, by the city of Medford. This to me seems like a primary source, and should thus not be used so heavily.
 * It looks like the Oregon Historical Quarterly has information about the mountain's early history too
 * First of all, thank you for taking the time to go over the article. As far as I know, there are no academic studies about the mountain, and besides vandalism, I don't think there are many other effects of tourism in the park.
 * @Comment 1: I'm not really, sure, but I've moved it because it makes sense.
 * @Comment 2: I've added distances.
 * @Comment 3: All that the referance states is that the peak may be an intrusion in the otherwise volcanic region. The info could either be removed, or someone could ask the user who added it, Seattle Skier.
 * @Comment 4: Where would a good place for that information be?
 * @Comment 5: Removed.
 * @Comment 6: 5 out of the 7 times the brochure ref appears in the article, it is doubled up with a least one other ref. These 5 could either be left, or removed, leaving only 2 times it is used.
 * @Comment 7: Thanks for finding that, I'll look at it.
 * Thanks again,  Little Mountain  5   23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about the non-bulleted comments in the opening remarks, too. I worry that this article is not comprehensive. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I forgot to indent, so I'm not sure if you saw my comments above. Also, what does it need to be more comprehensive?  Little Mountain  5   21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please see my replies to Comments 3, 4, and 6. Thanks,  Little Mountain  5   22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be more information on 3 - how you get that data I'm don't know.  For 4, I don't care - probably in Geology.  For 6, if the other cite that double-ups covers all the info in that sentence, remove the brochure ref. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per 3, I cannot find any more information on the subject. It could either be left, or removed. Thanks, <em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"> Little Mountain  5   21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How's this for 4, and this for 6? <em style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold"> Little Mountain  5   01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As for comment 7, I'll try to find it in a local library sometime soon, because it is only snippet view.  Little  Mountain  5   21:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work. Please note that my biggest issue is that there appears to be almost no information from journals/academic studies/etc.  I'm worried that an article sourced primarily to newspapers is not comprehensive on a topic such as this. Karanacs (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the effort you put into this.  Little  Mountain  5   21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.