This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Buaidh for a lot of good work done here. Here are my comments.
I'm still concerned about the use of the term "summit eminence" on this page. As I noted at Talk:Summit eminence, defining this term on Wikipedia is original research. Even using the measure at all is possibly OR, although I think it's somewhat defensible (and as I've said, I use the measure myself sometimes). But at the least, I would prefer language like "ranked by prominence times elevation" instead of "most eminent". Some outside opinions would be useful, so I might put a note on Talk:Topographic prominence and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains asking people for their input. Sound OK? -- Spireguy 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The table of ranges and subranges is beautifully constructed and a real mine of information. A labelled map showing the location of all of these places would be wonderful and raise the article to near perfection. Dricherby ( talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know where the information is drawn from. What exactly are the ranges of mountains in Colorado varies from map to map and book to book. There are ranges identified in this chart that don't appear among the ranges listed by the USGS-GNIS and names there that don't appear here. I'm not quarrelling with the organization or the information. But, I think the sources of the information and organization should be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.181.143 ( talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you have followed Peakbagger in designating ranges, subranges etc. (I can't tell where the primary, tertiary stuff came from though.) Though I respect the work done by Peakbagger, he says himself:
The USGS lists 77 ranges in Colorado. I'd be more comfortable if we followed the USGS GNIS system rather than a site that is primarily concerned with making lists of peaks. 184.96.144.186 ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll second these concerns. There's no need for duplication of PeakBagger's efforts. This page should focus on verifiable information. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RyanSchilling (
talk •
contribs) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the Wet Mountains should have their own section, and should not be lumped in with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. They are geologically a southern extension of the Front Range, so if they must be placed as a "secondary" range, they should be secondary to the Front Range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.252.1 ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What happened to Mt. Princeton? 2600:100E:B0C0:BA31:0:0:B6E6:C101 ( talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks Buaidh for a lot of good work done here. Here are my comments.
I'm still concerned about the use of the term "summit eminence" on this page. As I noted at Talk:Summit eminence, defining this term on Wikipedia is original research. Even using the measure at all is possibly OR, although I think it's somewhat defensible (and as I've said, I use the measure myself sometimes). But at the least, I would prefer language like "ranked by prominence times elevation" instead of "most eminent". Some outside opinions would be useful, so I might put a note on Talk:Topographic prominence and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains asking people for their input. Sound OK? -- Spireguy 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The table of ranges and subranges is beautifully constructed and a real mine of information. A labelled map showing the location of all of these places would be wonderful and raise the article to near perfection. Dricherby ( talk) 21:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to know where the information is drawn from. What exactly are the ranges of mountains in Colorado varies from map to map and book to book. There are ranges identified in this chart that don't appear among the ranges listed by the USGS-GNIS and names there that don't appear here. I'm not quarrelling with the organization or the information. But, I think the sources of the information and organization should be presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.181.143 ( talk) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you have followed Peakbagger in designating ranges, subranges etc. (I can't tell where the primary, tertiary stuff came from though.) Though I respect the work done by Peakbagger, he says himself:
The USGS lists 77 ranges in Colorado. I'd be more comfortable if we followed the USGS GNIS system rather than a site that is primarily concerned with making lists of peaks. 184.96.144.186 ( talk) 14:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll second these concerns. There's no need for duplication of PeakBagger's efforts. This page should focus on verifiable information. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RyanSchilling (
talk •
contribs) 18:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the Wet Mountains should have their own section, and should not be lumped in with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. They are geologically a southern extension of the Front Range, so if they must be placed as a "secondary" range, they should be secondary to the Front Range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.252.1 ( talk) 18:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
What happened to Mt. Princeton? 2600:100E:B0C0:BA31:0:0:B6E6:C101 ( talk) 16:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)