The page is now in decent shape, and Charles has convinced me that this peak deserves an independent page (your revised description also makes that case much better than it initially did).
I don't think it's a four-star page yet though. It's missing the usual sections on Mountain Conditions, Red Tape, and When to Climb. More could probably be done in the way of helpful links to park services and other resources.
Moving on to minor sins, more photos certainly wouldn't hurt - photos are one of the best things about Summitpost (though they're also the easiest part for others to contribute, so they shouldn't play too big a role in voting on new pages as long as there's at least one or two).
Speaking of photos, I don't agree with your choice of putting all the photos at the bottom of the page. Ideally, photos should be attached to the section where they are most relevant, eg, shots of the mountain from a distance attached to the Overview section, shots of good campsites in the Camping section, etc. (Some people like to spread photos around a bit more liberally, for aesthetic reasons - it's unlikely you'll have a photo that's relevant to Red Tape, for example, but some people attach photos there anyway once Overview gets crowded.)
Check out some of the other pages on this website. While this is better than your other recent offerings, it is far below what is expected on this site.
...looking any better?
Not really. There are countless examples of 4 star pages on this website. Please refer to a few of them and see what is generally acceptable here. If this is all you have for this mountain, then it might not be worth submitting.
At least add more photos.
Check your e-mails from email@example.com! My apology is there and if you need help with your page in any way, let me know.
Thanks for the warm welcome to the site, and thanks for appreciating the information I have freely shared with you (said with tough in cheek).
In the future please keep your pointless and unthoughtful comments to yourself. You might want to think about who is being a "dick" (as you say).
It sort of seems to me like SP is some sort of group of elitists who don't want anyone else to join their group. I've made a sincere effort to share accurate information and have used my time freely to do so. I'm sorry if I don't take a lot of pictures (and as such don’t have a lot of them to post) or if I don't have a GPS system (and so don’t see the need for longitude and latitude numbers). I have shared what I know, and please forgive this newcomer for not sharing the canned sort of information that you seem to expect to read. How about being a little bit grateful, and thinking a bit outside your sheltered box? If this is the way you treat all new members I have to wonder if any of them stick around.
LET ME APOLOGIZE FOR TRYING TO MAKE THIS SITE MORE COMPLETE AND FOR SHARING WHAT I KNOW AND THE PICTURES I HAVE.
Have a great evening!
mtwashingtonmonroe, I just clicked on your profile and I now understand quite a bit more clearly about where you are coming from; you are a 19 year old kid! Since you are just a teenager, I will make an effort to overlook your misinterpretations of my comments as well as your lack of manners. Remember the golden rule (you can look that one up if you need to), also try not to misconstrue others comments especially those not directed at you. In life you will get a lot further and win a lot more friends if you treat others with respect. One last thing, please try not to be so haughty about "your sport" (as you call it).
I sent you an apology in an e-mail, but apparently you just don't care. I'm not going to be rude because yesturday, I was just having a bad day (friend killed in a car accident), but if you want to be rude and a 37 year old without manners that is fine.
The truth of the matter is there was still no need for you to be calling names like an immature little kid. They weren't directed at me, you're right, but they are directed at my friends and it won't be tolerated. Maybe you should look at your own comments on making friends and realize you need some work too.
I apologized and I'm not going to talk about this dumb stuff anymore. If you choose to, that's fine, but let's make our sport of sharing information and stories positive instead of cutting each other up. My apology is on the table whether you accept it or not. I understand the Golden Rule, do you? Have a good day and a nice weekend and happy trails to you.
Thank you so much for the worthwhile and positive feedback! When I find the information you suggested I will definitely add it.
The page hasn't changed much. The only reason I can guess people where being negative towards it is because it describes an eastern peak, and they must have been trying to compare it to mountains in the West; unfair comparison to say the least. One can only wish Virginia had mountains as magnificent as the west, but it doesn’t.
Thanks, your suggestions have been incorporated.
Please be a big more specific, as to why you rated this page as you did.
OK, I'm going to go throw you a bone here. I hope no one is offended by me doing this. Keep working on the page though; it can always be improved.
1. After scrolling around with Topozone, I see that this mountain has approximately 254 feet prominence above the connecting saddle with the next highest peak. This is enough back east to be considered a seperate peak (various list use 160 or 200 feet) and even some peaks in Colorado (North Maroon comes to mind) have less than this, but have seperate pages. I think you are safe to say so that this is a seperate peak on the page. The elevation of the peak itself would make it a hill out west, but it could be a mountain out east. Smaller stuff has been submitted.
2. The only problem at all I see is that this duplicates some of the mountain covered by the Great North Mountain place, including the route added by Charles to this location. It doesn't seem to duplicate the whole mountain/range itself though, just that route page. I would suggest contacting Charles and asking him about this seperate page. If this is going to work, maybe the route should be attached to this one
I will be watching to see how this works out. Don't give out yet, but continue to improve.
BTW, what the heck is a Schloss?
Great! This is a solid page. As Scott mentioned (maybe others), I maintain the Great North Mountain page. Originally, I lumped Big Schloss in with GNM since there was almost nothing else in the area covered on SP. Might as well kill two birds with one stone. Now that you've put up a good page for Big Schloss on it's own, I'll edit my page and also move a couple of photos over.
It's an amazing place! We emerged at the summit after a couple days in the woods back in 2001 to discover that the US was bombing Afghanistan. Sort of a rude reminder that the world goes on despite your separation from it.
CharlesD, good to know that you appreciate Big Schloss being listed as it's own summit. A lot of folks have asked for more pictures, so it would be great if you moved one of yours over (as you suggested). I thought it was important --and I noticed you picked up on this -- to clarify that Big Schloss is in Virginia and not West Viriginia. Side note, I just got back from spending the day hiking in Shenandoah.
I've resubmitted two Big Schloss photos and deleted the route on my GNM page. I also see that you've added a couple photos. But what happened to that cool photo you had up before? That was definitely the best of the bunch and had really great lighting to boot.
Regarding states, doesn't the VA/WV border run down the ridgeline? Perhaps the actual summit of Big Schloss is in VA, but it's somewhat academic, no?
Nice work. You are getting a lot better!
Good views from this summit not too far from Seneca.
Page looks good now.
Looks a lot better than some of your first offerings. Nice work.