![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Papua New Guinea may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is possible that the other summit has been climbed, though not by Europeans. The peak is close, at around 20km, to a village called Tep Tep. Nomadtales 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the two sources I have at hand for Finisterre HP, I have a small problem. Here's what the two sources say:
Peaklist's footnote seems to support Peakbagger's elevation, so based on this mutual support, I am quite comfortable with stating 4,125 m as the elevation.
But what to do with the prominence? Peakbagger and Peaklist give different key cols and therefore have calculated different prominences, even if you start with 4125 m as an elevation. Because Peaklist gives more detail on how these figures were derived, (and Peaklist is in general a superior source IMO) I am tempted to use only Peaklist's data and the information in the footnote to adjust Peaklist's prominence value by the same 50 m SRTM supported elevation adjustment:
Or another way to do it and get the same value is to subtract Peaklist's (topo map supported) key col value from the 4,125 m elevation figure given by Peakbagger and supported by Peaklist's footnote:
The problem with all this is that Peaklist never explicitly states 3,684 m as the peak's prominence. So the above is, at the very least, possible or borderline original research if not blatant OR. Is this correct (would it in fact be OR?), or may we adjust the prominence based on the above? It is just simple subtraction of sourced data after all.
My dilemma - should I place in the article what I believe to be the most accurate information at the risk of introducing possible OR/synthesis, or should I just leave it as is, even though the sources seem indicate something else?-- Racerx11 ( talk) 02:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry this got a little long and confusing. In a nutshell, prominence = elevation - key col. So if we have a sourced elevation and sourced key col, can we simply take the difference and call it the prominence? Or is this OR?-- Racerx11 ( talk) 02:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We actually have enough information for an article on the highpoint alone. How about that? -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
A 1942 army map is referenced to support the claim that the unnamed peak might have at some stage been called Mt Gladstone. The location of Mt Gladstone on the map is the same Lat/Long as now quoted for the highest point in the range, however the terrain shown on the WWII map only vaguely resembles the correct topography, with Mt Disraeli being a more accurate topographic representation of the highest point (based on ridges and valleys). Further, the height given for Mt Disraeli is 15000ft, which is higher than Mt Gladstone and closer to the true mark (the heights for both Mts do not correctly match the actual topography). Given that this is a WWII map of an area that was inadequately surveyed, and that the resultant map does not correspond with now known topography it is highly likely that none of the names given for peaks on the map have any authoritative standing. Whilst the map has historical interest, its inclusion, without context, merely adds confusion, thus I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Papua New Guinea may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
It is possible that the other summit has been climbed, though not by Europeans. The peak is close, at around 20km, to a village called Tep Tep. Nomadtales 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Given the two sources I have at hand for Finisterre HP, I have a small problem. Here's what the two sources say:
Peaklist's footnote seems to support Peakbagger's elevation, so based on this mutual support, I am quite comfortable with stating 4,125 m as the elevation.
But what to do with the prominence? Peakbagger and Peaklist give different key cols and therefore have calculated different prominences, even if you start with 4125 m as an elevation. Because Peaklist gives more detail on how these figures were derived, (and Peaklist is in general a superior source IMO) I am tempted to use only Peaklist's data and the information in the footnote to adjust Peaklist's prominence value by the same 50 m SRTM supported elevation adjustment:
Or another way to do it and get the same value is to subtract Peaklist's (topo map supported) key col value from the 4,125 m elevation figure given by Peakbagger and supported by Peaklist's footnote:
The problem with all this is that Peaklist never explicitly states 3,684 m as the peak's prominence. So the above is, at the very least, possible or borderline original research if not blatant OR. Is this correct (would it in fact be OR?), or may we adjust the prominence based on the above? It is just simple subtraction of sourced data after all.
My dilemma - should I place in the article what I believe to be the most accurate information at the risk of introducing possible OR/synthesis, or should I just leave it as is, even though the sources seem indicate something else?-- Racerx11 ( talk) 02:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry this got a little long and confusing. In a nutshell, prominence = elevation - key col. So if we have a sourced elevation and sourced key col, can we simply take the difference and call it the prominence? Or is this OR?-- Racerx11 ( talk) 02:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
We actually have enough information for an article on the highpoint alone. How about that? -- RacerX11 Talk to me Stalk me 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
A 1942 army map is referenced to support the claim that the unnamed peak might have at some stage been called Mt Gladstone. The location of Mt Gladstone on the map is the same Lat/Long as now quoted for the highest point in the range, however the terrain shown on the WWII map only vaguely resembles the correct topography, with Mt Disraeli being a more accurate topographic representation of the highest point (based on ridges and valleys). Further, the height given for Mt Disraeli is 15000ft, which is higher than Mt Gladstone and closer to the true mark (the heights for both Mts do not correctly match the actual topography). Given that this is a WWII map of an area that was inadequately surveyed, and that the resultant map does not correspond with now known topography it is highly likely that none of the names given for peaks on the map have any authoritative standing. Whilst the map has historical interest, its inclusion, without context, merely adds confusion, thus I am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameel the Saluki ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)