![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Corrected information: WNYA-TV was listed as transmitting from the WCDC-TV tower on this page. It does not. It transmits from a small tower on Berry Mountain in the Pittsfield State Forest. The second antenna on the WCDC tower on Mt Greylock is W38DL, a low power translator for WNYT-TV. (Information updated on the main page). Mike/NECRAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.10.21 ( talk) 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Revising w/ references over the next few days. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I logged in but was unable to decipher the editing process ( yeah, i'm completely new at this computer thing) so I hope someone will read this and make a small correction to the Mount Greylock article for accuracy sake, thanks. The article states that the average prominence of the peak above its surrounding river valleys is only 2000 feet, but anyone who knows the area as well as I, or who bothers to check the USGS Topographic maps for this quadrant, can see that the surrounding river valleys range from very slightly above 700 feet MSL to just below 700 feet MSL. In other words, at 3491 feet MSL, the peak has an average prominence of about 2800 feet above its surrounding river valleys. Please, let's not diminish the easily verifiable grandeur of it's prominence with a careless oversight. Those of us who enjoy the good health to climb it regularly know too well the vertical ascent/descent from the river valley floors on all sides of our mountain. Other than that, I applaud the authors and editors who've provided such a great account of "my backyard". Thanks, see ya out there. Eagleswatchhim ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Review done. This is now a good article. Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Review abandoned as per WT:Good article nominations#Mount Greylock. New reviewer please start under here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks good to go. Mr. R00t Talk 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I signed up to do the GA review, but I gave up- I realized I'd rather focus on other things. Is anyone willing to do it?? Us441( talk) ( contribs) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for a reassessment, partially because the GA review initiated by User:1234r00t was completed in a mere 16 minutes (see [1] and [2]) in what seemed to be a rush to get the nomination out of the backlog, and because I found numerous MoS issues, reference style issues, prose concerns, and over-linking in only a minute of skimming through it. The review was, in a nutshell, irresponsibly handled. I'm not saying that the article does not deserve it, however; but it definitely needs a proper lookover.
My quick review of the article:
Prose:
|adj=mid|-long bridge
to the convert template to get "93-foot-high (28 m)".MoS:
|abbr=none|lk=on
to first instances of measurement units, |abbr=on
to the rest.References:
Criterion 3:
NPOV:
All I can do right now. Anyhow, it has many problems which have never been addressed, and in a nutshell, it does not currently qualify as a GA. Should be de-listed and have its review continued. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In the naming section it claims "It first appeared in print about 1819, and came into popular use by the 1830s." Do we have a reference for that, or know where it was that it first appeared? 121.74.233.34 ( talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure Mount Greylock is in the Taconic Mountains. Please check your sources. Thanks! -- I love the interweb! ( talk) 22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "views of up to 70–135 mi (113–217 km) are possible". WolframAlpha says that at an elevation of 3491 ft, the horizon is 72.4 miles away. That is enough to see into Connecticut (42 miles away and the furthest distance), but unless there are specific features that otherwise rise above the horizon, seeing 80+ miles is impossible from the summit. 70.186.139.54 ( talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mount Greylock/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I cannot recommend it for B class since it has no citations at present. RedWolf 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Much better now with inline citations. Should use the {{cite web}} citation template rather than raw HTML. Needs a citation for the prominence. RedWolf ( talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Corrected information: WNYA-TV was listed as transmitting from the WCDC-TV tower on this page. It does not. It transmits from a small tower on Berry Mountain in the Pittsfield State Forest. The second antenna on the WCDC tower on Mt Greylock is W38DL, a low power translator for WNYT-TV. (Information updated on the main page). Mike/NECRAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.10.21 ( talk) 21:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Revising w/ references over the next few days. -- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I logged in but was unable to decipher the editing process ( yeah, i'm completely new at this computer thing) so I hope someone will read this and make a small correction to the Mount Greylock article for accuracy sake, thanks. The article states that the average prominence of the peak above its surrounding river valleys is only 2000 feet, but anyone who knows the area as well as I, or who bothers to check the USGS Topographic maps for this quadrant, can see that the surrounding river valleys range from very slightly above 700 feet MSL to just below 700 feet MSL. In other words, at 3491 feet MSL, the peak has an average prominence of about 2800 feet above its surrounding river valleys. Please, let's not diminish the easily verifiable grandeur of it's prominence with a careless oversight. Those of us who enjoy the good health to climb it regularly know too well the vertical ascent/descent from the river valley floors on all sides of our mountain. Other than that, I applaud the authors and editors who've provided such a great account of "my backyard". Thanks, see ya out there. Eagleswatchhim ( talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Reviewer: Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Review done. This is now a good article. Mr. R00t Talk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Review abandoned as per WT:Good article nominations#Mount Greylock. New reviewer please start under here. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks good to go. Mr. R00t Talk 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I signed up to do the GA review, but I gave up- I realized I'd rather focus on other things. Is anyone willing to do it?? Us441( talk) ( contribs) 17:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for a reassessment, partially because the GA review initiated by User:1234r00t was completed in a mere 16 minutes (see [1] and [2]) in what seemed to be a rush to get the nomination out of the backlog, and because I found numerous MoS issues, reference style issues, prose concerns, and over-linking in only a minute of skimming through it. The review was, in a nutshell, irresponsibly handled. I'm not saying that the article does not deserve it, however; but it definitely needs a proper lookover.
My quick review of the article:
Prose:
|adj=mid|-long bridge
to the convert template to get "93-foot-high (28 m)".MoS:
|abbr=none|lk=on
to first instances of measurement units, |abbr=on
to the rest.References:
Criterion 3:
NPOV:
All I can do right now. Anyhow, it has many problems which have never been addressed, and in a nutshell, it does not currently qualify as a GA. Should be de-listed and have its review continued. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 04:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
In the naming section it claims "It first appeared in print about 1819, and came into popular use by the 1830s." Do we have a reference for that, or know where it was that it first appeared? 121.74.233.34 ( talk) 01:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I’m not sure Mount Greylock is in the Taconic Mountains. Please check your sources. Thanks! -- I love the interweb! ( talk) 22:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "views of up to 70–135 mi (113–217 km) are possible". WolframAlpha says that at an elevation of 3491 ft, the horizon is 72.4 miles away. That is enough to see into Connecticut (42 miles away and the furthest distance), but unless there are specific features that otherwise rise above the horizon, seeing 80+ miles is impossible from the summit. 70.186.139.54 ( talk) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mount Greylock/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I cannot recommend it for B class since it has no citations at present. RedWolf 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC) Much better now with inline citations. Should use the {{cite web}} citation template rather than raw HTML. Needs a citation for the prominence. RedWolf ( talk) 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 00:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)