I have to agree with Corax I'm afraid. The 2006 ascent on the Tibetan side was an absolutely outstanding climb. There's no passion in the text regarding this and it reads like a Wiki page. Besides the brief history there is little info here for any prospective climber (who would be approaching from Tibet not Bhutan) and little first hand info. Sorry
I've withdrawn my low vote while I wait to see what this page might become.
I agree that the page (especially Red Tape Getting There) is currently unacceptably slim. It seems from the history section that a Tibetan approach is at least as likely as an approach from Bhutan, so info about Tibetan logistics, permits, etc should be added to the page. Closer to the mountain, directions like "two day trek" are not helpful: what direction? What landmarks/obstacles on the way? How was the location of base camp chosen? Which routes does this camp serve?
I don't agree with re-designating this page as an "area"; that would require a complete re-write to (a) make clear what area or mountain range is being described (where does it begin and end, how many mountains does it include, etc etc and (b) provide some information about *each* of the major mountains within the area. An area/range page is a lot *more* difficult than a Mountain page.
At the moment, this page includes info about exactly one mountain. It's a mountain page. (Or at least, a mountain page under construction.)
If this peak really has only a handful of ascents, I don't have a problem with a mountain page written by somebody who's only been to base camp, as long as the page makes that clear.
I like the improved formatting in the first section, and I see you've added a bunch of info including a sentence or two about the approach from Tibet. Keep it up. It can be painful to learn to build a page while under criticism. Don't be discouraged, the result will be top-notch content. Standards at SP are pretty high, look at any mountain or range page by Corax for example.
Adding a vote for encouragement and because I think some of the previous votes are too harsh.
I don't think you're getting the point nartreb. It's illegal to climb the mountain from Bhutan. A serious mountain page would therefore need to focus 90% on the Tibet side else it is coffee table reading. The Bhutan base camp is only a historical base camp. Hence my recommendation to write about the area that the author has had first hand knowledge of.
You're right. I assumed that "base camp" was an actual base camp - since the page said nothing about the routes, I got confused. I also didn't (still don't) see your suggestion about an "area", but I still fail to see how it would work. If the idea is to exempt this page from the usual standards for a mountain page, a Custom Object ("Chomolhari Bhutan side trekking") might be the way to go.
BigLee - Nov 20, 2007 5:15 pm - Hasn't voted
ChomolhariI have to agree with Corax I'm afraid. The 2006 ascent on the Tibetan side was an absolutely outstanding climb. There's no passion in the text regarding this and it reads like a Wiki page. Besides the brief history there is little info here for any prospective climber (who would be approaching from Tibet not Bhutan) and little first hand info. Sorry
nartreb - Nov 21, 2007 10:13 am - Hasn't voted
page still improvingI've withdrawn my low vote while I wait to see what this page might become.
I agree that the page (especially Red Tape Getting There) is currently unacceptably slim. It seems from the history section that a Tibetan approach is at least as likely as an approach from Bhutan, so info about Tibetan logistics, permits, etc should be added to the page. Closer to the mountain, directions like "two day trek" are not helpful: what direction? What landmarks/obstacles on the way? How was the location of base camp chosen? Which routes does this camp serve?
nartreb - Nov 22, 2007 10:50 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: page still improvingI don't agree with re-designating this page as an "area"; that would require a complete re-write to (a) make clear what area or mountain range is being described (where does it begin and end, how many mountains does it include, etc etc and (b) provide some information about *each* of the major mountains within the area. An area/range page is a lot *more* difficult than a Mountain page.
At the moment, this page includes info about exactly one mountain. It's a mountain page. (Or at least, a mountain page under construction.)
If this peak really has only a handful of ascents, I don't have a problem with a mountain page written by somebody who's only been to base camp, as long as the page makes that clear.
I like the improved formatting in the first section, and I see you've added a bunch of info including a sentence or two about the approach from Tibet. Keep it up. It can be painful to learn to build a page while under criticism. Don't be discouraged, the result will be top-notch content. Standards at SP are pretty high, look at any mountain or range page by Corax for example.
Adding a vote for encouragement and because I think some of the previous votes are too harsh.
BigLee - Nov 23, 2007 3:33 am - Hasn't voted
Re: page still improvingI don't think you're getting the point nartreb. It's illegal to climb the mountain from Bhutan. A serious mountain page would therefore need to focus 90% on the Tibet side else it is coffee table reading. The Bhutan base camp is only a historical base camp. Hence my recommendation to write about the area that the author has had first hand knowledge of.
nartreb - Nov 23, 2007 7:25 am - Hasn't voted
Re: page still improvingYou're right. I assumed that "base camp" was an actual base camp - since the page said nothing about the routes, I got confused. I also didn't (still don't) see your suggestion about an "area", but I still fail to see how it would work. If the idea is to exempt this page from the usual standards for a mountain page, a Custom Object ("Chomolhari Bhutan side trekking") might be the way to go.