Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Should I delete this page?

Get HTML help, style input, and feedback on your pages from other SP members.
 

Should I delete this page?

Postby scottmitch » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:08 pm

http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/596836/Hieroglyphic-Mountains.html

A few SPer's have commented on this page and don't like that I have sourced most of the information from wikipedia.

My take on it is why reinvent the wheel? The area has a rich history and the article did a nice job of summing it up.

Just looking for some feedback on this if its not up to SP standards and needs to go thats fine.
User Avatar
scottmitch

 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 1:52 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Postby Bob Sihler » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:45 pm

It's not wrong to post information from other sources, especially when the information pertains to regulations, driving directions, etc., but there is a general consensus that you should rely mostly on your own firsthand knowledge when making a page.

The range is worth a page, and it's obvious from the pictures that you've been among those mountains. I would consider adding some sections telling us what's noteworthy about these mountains, why we would want to go there, what the climbing is like, etc. And I'd consider redoing the longer pasted section by using your own words to condense it to the essentials.

I have posted info from Wikipedia and other sources before, but I do it sparingly and do not let it come anywhere close to being the majority of my page's information.
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Thanked: 2012 times in 1132 posts

Postby Gabriele Roth » Sat Feb 20, 2010 5:46 pm

here (on SP) there's a lot of mountain pages created using various kind of info gathered here and there
... by people that not only haven't submitted them but, I think, have neither tried to climb them nor passed beside :) :lol:
User Avatar
Gabriele Roth

 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:09 am
Location: Lombardia, Italy
Thanked: 24 times in 17 posts

Re: Should I delete this page?

Postby MoapaPk » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:11 pm

scottmitch wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/596836/Hieroglyphic-Mountains.html

A few SPer's have commented on this page and don't like that I have sourced most of the information from wikipedia.

My take on it is why reinvent the wheel? The area has a rich history and the article did a nice job of summing it up.

Just looking for some feedback on this if its not up to SP standards and needs to go thats fine.


First, you cite wikipedia (and not a specific link) only after cribbing a few sentences.

Your description of the geology, at my reading, is this:
Geology granite, schist
Orogeny volcanic
Period Precambrian

The Pecambrian is a very long period of time, before about 4.6e8 years ago. Most of the mountain-building in that area was in the Tertiary, less than 2.5e7 years ago; quite a contradiction. I don't know that area, but I seriously doubt all the landforms you show are schist and granite. There are Precambrian rocks at the core of the mountains -- but that doesn't tell you how or when they were incorporated in the current mountains.

If you don't understand something, don't make a garbled and probably incorrect summary; cite a reference where people can go to get more information. What we'd prefer instead is that you read about this area that you love, digest the information, come to understand it, and give us a believable, referenced summary.

Often wikipedia pages on obscure mountains are wrong; e.g. the Frenchman Mt NV page used to claim that the Precambrian rocks were on the summit. You should read the wiki references with a dispassionate eye, do some more web research, digest it until you understand it, and then write the description. A visit to a brick-and-mortar library wouldn't hurt.

There are digestible, easier-to-understand books about AZ geology; you will probably enjoy reading them and sharing the insights that you gleaned.

You can start by looking for a few critical paragraphs here:
http://www.maricopa.gov/parks/lake_plea ... d_Plan.pdf
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 760 times in 493 posts

Postby lcarreau » Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:47 pm

Guess I shouldn't be talking. My pages seem to be incredibly "artsy" and filled with eye candy.

You want to focus on "approach" issues, and whether a route is doable or not. Conditions
"on the ground" will change year after year. Try to keep a logical focus on your page, asking yourself this question :

If "Joe Tent Peg" from the east coast is considering a trip to Arizona, how would I describe
this range of mountains to him ??? ??

You could possibly include historical and natural science links to make it interesting,
but most folks are going to want to know topographical issues, route conditions and how
to get my butt from Point "A" to Point "B" in the quickest amount of time imaginable.

In conclusion, we really need some good (and updated) pages (from Arizona - "that cesspool of incredible heat" ) here on the BIG SP.

8)
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4056
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 935 times in 698 posts

Postby nartreb » Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:54 pm

Other than the photos, I can't find any content on your page NOT pasted from wikipedia. You've taken just about the whole Wikipedia article, which is a clear violation of copyright. (Read the Creative Commons License that applies to the Wikipedia article; you are not in compliance.) See also SP's FAQ

The page will be deleted if you don't fix it pronto.
User Avatar
nartreb

 
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: online or in boston, Massachusetts, United States
Thanked: 112 times in 91 posts

Postby Bill Kish » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:17 pm

I'm no IP attorney but the only obvious license violation I see here is in section 4a of the relevant CC-BY-SA wikipedia license. That can be fixed by simply including a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA in the SP article.

Other than that minor issue I think it is a great idea to build upon creative commons licensed work such as wikipedia. That is the intent after all.
User Avatar
Bill Kish

 
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 1:46 am
Location: United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby MoapaPk » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm

Point moot, page gone.
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7664
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 760 times in 493 posts

Postby musicman82 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:59 am

Good - now if someone would just delete this page:
http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/598023/mountains.html
User Avatar
musicman82

 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:27 am
Location: Powell, Wyoming, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post


Return to Page Help

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.