Wikipedia:Peer review/Lynn Hill/archive1

Lynn Hill
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm going to be submitting this article for FA, so please review accordingly. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment: Do my eyes deceive me? Apparently not - this will be a pleasure! Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(PS: as a starter you could fix the dablink on John Long)


 * Fixed! :) And your eyes do not deceive you! This is a really different kind of article for me, though, so I will need lots of help! Wadewitz (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I'm delighted that you're writing articles again, and it's interesting that you've chosen a new subject area. I want to give this article a thorough review, so I'm doing it in stages. Here is the first half:
 * General points


 * What is the rationale for italicising the names of climbs?
 * That seems to be the convention in the literature. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but is it in accordance with MOS? Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the MOS has a rule about this. I looked around and didn't see anything. The climbing articles on Wikipedia are pretty undeveloped, so the MOS probably reflects that. In my opinion, this is like italicizing the title of a book - it is that ubiquitous. Wadewitz (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, no big deal, but some FAC nitpicker may raise it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of the direct quotes seem a little long (e.g. "Climbing career", first paragraph)
 * I've paraphrased some of the quotes. I've left others, for a variety of reasons, mostly stemming from the fact that many of the sources are interviews and I want to make sure that readers understand that the information is direct. Many of the quotes I kept are about more charged issues, such as gender, or emotional issues, like motivations for climbing. Wadewitz (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend myself towards paraphrase whenever possible, and have a habit of putting any direct quote longer than about 30 words into a quote box, which I know some people don't like. We have different ways of doing things. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A non-neutral tone creeps in at times, suggestive of a tribute rather than a factual encyclopedia article. Maybe cut down on a few adjectives?
 * Perhaps you could suggest places where the adjectives should be cut? I was looking over the article, but the places where it might seem overdone are actually true - she was the best or first, etc. She really is a phenomenal climber. Those are the facts! :) I made a real effort to find sources that were critical of her or her climbing, but there aren't that many, honestly. Wadewitz (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This was more a general impression I had after first reading the article. I didn't make a detailed list, though I remember specifically mentioning "masterful" somewhere. I also picked up "impressive", and thought "great tension" should be just "tension". But these are basically issues for you to decide; I do feel, however, that if strong descriptive terms are used, the text needs to be clear that they are from a source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * The descriptions of Hill as "both one of the best female climbers in the world and one of the best climbers of all time" are cited in the lead; surely these citations belong in the main body of the article?
 * I cited them because in the past people have asked for citations for those claims wherever they appeared. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the convention is not to cite the same material more than once, and to cite in the main text rather than the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * These are generalized statements about her as a climber that seem like perfect lede material and I guess my experience has always been that people ask for citations, so I'm going to leave them for the moment. I'd rather take them out later than have to search for them again! Wadewitz (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with making the statements in the lead, but as far as citations go, the guideline in WP:WHYCITE reads: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I know this isn't wholly prescriptive, but it does summarise current practice, and there doesn't seem to be a convincing reason for not following it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "to this day" and "currently" are inspecific points in time. Something along the lines of "As of 2013..." is necessary.
 * Clarified. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Childhod


 * I imagine that a "light pole" is what we here call a "lamp post"; perhaps the term "street light" would cover both idioms? Incidentally, I find it hard to work out what is included in the range "everything from trees to light poles".
 * That is from the source. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Being able to "break down complex movements into their constituent parts" and "perform strenuous and complicated routines with control" as well as "remain[ing] calm under pressure and harness her adrenaline so as to enhance her performance" gave Hill an significant edge in climbing". This rather cumbersome sentence is the second in succession to end with "in climbing"; also, I wonder if the rather clunky quotes are really necessary? The point that her gymnastic skills assisted her climbing has already been made.
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to climbing


 * In the first fairly short paragraph there is rather too much repetition of "climbing/climbers/climbed"
 * Hm. yeah. The problem is that there just isn't another word and to replace "climbers" with something else less specific would alter the meaning. I'll see if I can do something, but every time I've returned to this problem it has remained. Wadewitz (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Couple of suggestions: "For Hill, this activity became an escape..." and "...their romance flourished; with him she climbed her first 5.11 and first big wall." That gets rid of two repetitions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent - thank you! Implemented! Wadewitz (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph (towards end): the words "For example" occur for the first of quite a few times in the article. I suggest you check out how many of these are needed; they read a little repetitively.  Also, "female only" needs to be "female-only" in its adjectival form
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "without hanging on the rope or rely on equipment to skip difficult sections" - needs "relying"
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "his masterful promotion" - beware the weasel. Also "help ... helping" in the same sentence doesn't read well
 * "masterful" is supported by source. Changed second "help" to "encourage". Wadewitz (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the one. It is not clear that the description comes from the source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hill and Long spent the winter of 1981 in Las Vegas, Nevada climbing during the day and working nights": perhaps clarify what work they did?
 * No details on what they did are available. Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "They offered her a free flight to New York and finding she liked the Shawangunks, she decided to stay." Too telescopic; needs a bit more text. Why was she offered a free flight? What was her purpose for going to New York? How come she found a mountain range? Suggest some expansion/rewriting in this paragraph.
 * Expanded. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "After moving to New York, Hill also attended..." Delete "also"
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Climbing career


 * I discovered from the link that 5.12 refers to the Yosemite decimal system (having just used a link to find out what "free climb" meant). I suggest a bit more explanation in the text to reduce readers' reliance on links, e.g. "She became the first person to free climb the Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado, the hardest route ever climbed by a woman at that time, ranked 5.12d for difficulty in the Yosemite decimal system."
 * See my comment/question at the end of the review about the jargon in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In fact" is journalistic rather than encyclopedic.
 * Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any useful link for "crack climb"?
 * Ha! Someone created a stub today! How fortuitous! Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hill's partner at the time, John Long..." Long already identified in previous section.
 * Removed extra info. Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To which of the two (Yellow Crack or Vandals) does the description "the most difficult route on the East Coast" apply?
 * Rewritten to clarify. Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Competitive career


 * "Hill felt an affinity for French culture and climbing immediately" → "Hill felt an immediate affinity for French culture and climbing".
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * she found it "interesting" to climb with "other strong women"... Overuse of quote marks - these are commonplace words
 * I want to leave in the "other strong women" part - it may be an overused phrase, but she used it specifically to describe her motivation, so I think it is important. Replaced "interesting" with "stimulating". Wadewitz (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "sport climbing" should be linked at first mention
 * Done.Wadewitz (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The nature of the "World Cup" competition should be explained
 * The competition changed rules every year, particularly at the beginning, so I've added some general comments. Wadewitz (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "In January 1990, Hill set another landmark by becoming the first woman to redpoint a consensus 5.14..." Too jargonistic for the general reader, I think
 * See comment/question at the end of the review. Wadewitz (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Nose World traveller Gender politics Media Personal life
 * Continuing
 * Punc required in first sentence, preferably a comma after "circuit"
 * Added. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled by the logic of "together with her partner Brooke Sandahl, she became the first person..." Can you be the "first person" when you do something with a partner? Wouldn't it be truer to say "she and her partner Brooke Sandahl became the first persons..."?
 * In climbing, yes you can. In fact, Brooke did not free climb the entire route - only Lynn did. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, seems odd, but there it is. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with long verbatim quotes, in this case of around 240 words, which could raise issues of copyright. Apart from that, long quotations of this kind tend to detract from the required neutral tone by emphasising a personal, emotional element.
 * No copyright concerns here, as the original piece is much longer. Moreover, I find paraphrasing a passage like this to be much more problematic because I find is slightly deceptive to translate the personal, emotional tone into an impersonal, non-emotional tone. That would not reflect the source. Moreover, climbing is a very personal sport and these kinds of descriptions are what fill the literature, so including them reflects what is published about this event. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have said, I take a different view about long quotes. There are other guidelines in WP:QUOTE which tend to disparage long quotes and the overuse of quotations in articles, the main argument being that over-reliance on source text damages neutrality. On the copyright issue, WP:QUOTE gives an example: "In one extreme [emphasis added] case, Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 400 quoted words from a 500-page book were ruled to be infringement". I believe this issue needs further consideration, maybe by way of a second opinion? Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Chronology: before the quote, the successful climbs are recorded. After the quote we go back to a failed attempt that preceded these, before further discussion of the successful clims It would be helpful if the content was rearranged to reflect the chronology
 * Chronological now. Wadewitz (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "free the nose": surely as an informal expression this should be in quotes? Also, "nose" should have a capital, and per your earlier reasoning should be italicizes.
 * I've removed this formulation as it is just confusing to the lay reader. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "downplayed": do you mean "underestimated"? That would make better sense in the context.
 * "underestimated" is from the source and I originally had that in quotes. GA reviewer asked for a paraphrased. I have reinstated "underestimated". :) Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "She ran out of chalk..." I may be dumb, but why did she need chalk?
 * Using chalk when you climb gives you added friction on the rock. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this could be made clear in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 10PM → 10pm
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "a fact which cements her Free Nose ascents as two of the most impressive achievements in climbing history." Such a judgement has to be specifically attributed, to counter the otherwise non-neutral tone.
 * Added a reference. Wadewitz (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs attribution as well as a reference: "A fact which, according to xxxx, cements her..." Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one of my issues with Wikipedia writing. This is basically a universal opinion in the climbing world. This isn't the view of just one person, a minority of people, or even a fraction of the climbing community. To represent it as such really changes the nature of the claim. Wadewitz (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to know how long Hill spent in Kyrgyzstan, also when she embarked on travels to the other places you list and whether these took place over a period of years. Were these further travels with the North Face team or independently?
 * I don't know any of the details about how long these trips were or when they happened. All of the sources just say she visited these places. And, yes, I think she visited them as part of the North Face team, but the sources themselves are not entirely clear. Wadewitz (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if the stuff isn't there... Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Every paragraph in the section begins with "Hill..."
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What is "bouldering"? Also, the opening phrasing: "Hill repeatedly tells a story..." is somewhat magaziney. The sentence needs reworking anyway, with "and ... and ... and".
 * Linked. Revised. I think it is important that she tells this story a lot - it is clearly important to her. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First sentence, second paragraph: Too long, with "arguing..." followed by "saying...". I suggest: "...climb the same routes: 'I think...'"
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What was Hill implying when she said "since most women aren't climbing at the same level as the top men, it's necessary to design a route that's a little easier for women"? This seems contrary to everything else she's said, and surely undermines the point of the story in the first paragraph, and also confirms the "sexist" comment in the next paragraph  ("...male climbers who believed particular routes were impossible for female climbers..." etc)
 * She wanted to get more women in the sport and since women had less experience, they generally couldn't do the harder routes. It isn't necessarily contradictory, but I think it is important to show her range of views, even if they are contradictory. (And I don't think it confirms the sexist comment - it was true that fewer women could do the hardest routes at that time (for a variety of reasons), but not that it was impossible for them.) Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "tomboy" doesn't need to be in quotes
 * I'm going to leave it in quotes because it is very specific word that she chooses to use. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The very long quote from Long that occupies most of the last paragraph should be reduced and paraphrased
 * I think that this quote is a great example of how she was viewed by many male climbers - they didn't see her as a great climber, necessarily. And she had to do something really phenomenal to gain their respect. She had to do more than a man would. I'm going to leave this for now. Wadewitz (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, from 1980 to 1984 (i.e. 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984) is five years in a row, not four
 * Hm. That's from the source, so it is probably seasons (80-81, 81-82, 82-83, 83-84). Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "She proposed a boycott to the other female competitors and ended up negotiating a deal with the producer that the prize money would be raised the next year and she could compete again." Some untidy prose there: "ended up", two ands, and "she could compete again" - had they banned her?
 * Fixed up. I'm not quite sure how to revised the "again" to suggest she hadn't been banned - I didn't realize that implication was there. Suggestions? Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest a slight rearrangement: end the first paragraph at "into a man's world", and include the following two sentences with the very short paragraph, to make a slightly longer paragraph
 * The inequity in the paragraph length may be undesirable, but the paragraphs are divided by topic - TV, film, books, and sponsorships. Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Hill's autobiography is a listed sources, do we need the publisher details in the text?
 * That's the literary critic in me - yes we do! Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "standpoint" is actually one word. If it appears as two words in the source, it's a mistake and should be denoted by [sic]
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "currently" - see earlier note.
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stronger punc than comma required after "Russ Haffa" if "however" follows.
 * Fixed. Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I nthink there's a guideline somewhere that children should not be named if they are not notable in their own right
 * Removed. Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the last sentence is covered by "personal life"
 * I'm just not sure where to put that material about the climbing camps. Can you suggest a good place? Wadewitz (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That concludes my review. I'm sorry if it seems to be mainly nitpicking, but I'm not well enough informed on the subject material to give a meaningful content review. The article looks comprehensive, and is engaging enough; it requires some polishing, a little care with overall tone, and as mentioned, some attention to overlong direct quotations. I've not looked at the sources, but knowing you I'd be surprised if there were problems here. As I am not watching individual peer reviews, perhaps you would ping me if you have any queries with any of my comments. As I said at the beginning, this is a most welcome return to the fray. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It was incredibly helpful - thank you! As usual, I appreciate your meticulousness!
 * It was a pleasure - quite like old times, when I did the Antarctic and you did Jane Austen. I won't do the strikes, as it is clear that you have dealt with my points; there is no obligation on you to agree with my preferences, and we are bound to disagree on some matters. I look forward to seeing this article at FAC - if you can bear the hassle, that is (though I am sure you will be welcomed there). Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment/question One concern I've had with this article since the beginning of writing it is how to make the jargon of rock climbing clear to lay readers. The terms used in this article are elementary rock climbing terms. Anyone climbing for a few months would have been exposed to them, so they are like "molecule" or "planet" or "sonnet", not words we would typically define in other articles. However, Wikipedia's climbing articles are poorly developed, so the links aren't too helpful, but I can't be responsible for ALL of the climbing articles! Also, I feel that stopping to explain basic terms (free climbing, redpoint, etc.) would really interrupt the flow of the writing. Please do let me know what you think. I'm really torn, because I want the article to be accessible, but I also don't want it to end up sounding like a vocabulary lesson. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On this issue, it is inevitable that articles on special subjects will incorporate to an extent the special languaage (or "jargon") of the subject. You are right in saying you can't keep stopping to explain terms to the uninititated; where appropriate you use links (often imperfect), a modicum of explanation when links aren't available, and you rely on your reader's intelligence to pick up meanings from context. As it stands, this article is pretty accessible. I, who know nothing about climbing or its vocabulary, found only two or three instances where I think further elucidation would be useful, so I don't think this is a major issue here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a few very minor comment.
 * The infobox says "Highest grade" of 5.14a. Should clarify that's a redpoint, and maybe add highest onsight as well.
 * It is not clear to me how the infobox works. The redpoint info is in the "known for" section. Please edit the box to be more precise. I'm not sure how the infobox for climbers works - I looked around and they seem very inconsistent. Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency describes all climbing articles. But since this is the best climbing bio, I'm sure in future people will look to it for guidance. I tweaked the template a bit. See what you think. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "For instance, she had resisted hang-dogging regarding it, like many climbers, as cheating, but after experimenting with it during her ascent of Vandals, she found it a useful way to learn challenging climbs." 5 commas in one sentence may be proper grammar, I don't know, but it read choppy.
 * Fixed a bit. Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "There was even a "Great Debate" in 1986 at the American Alpine Club at which a panel of all-star participants (of which Hill was one) were invited to discuss the merits of the two different styles, especially rappel-bolted climbing." Possible to rearrange sentence to avoid parenthetical comment (which should be avoided).
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Moab should probably be expanded to at least Moab, Utah. Unsure if country is needed.
 * Done. Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Great job. :) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)