Could use some color in the description, but all the photos tell the story --- really helped on my traverse of the Palisades in 2002! That was one scaaaary free-climb.
A little more information on the actual routes would be nice. And what's up with the "traverse" description that somehow calls it a 5.6-5.7 "scramble"? Peter Croft may consider 5.7 a scramble, but most of us don't.
Why is information on California 14ers so much poorer than on Colorado's? Do Californians just want to keep them to themselves?
Well, I did not enter the traverse description so I can't amend it. But Webster's dictionary defines to scramble as "to move or climb hastily on all fours". I think 5.7 can qualify.
Do you really think this is enough to justify a rating of 0 stars? I would really appreciate it if you increased it. If not, please propose more constructive ways to improve the page. Starlight is not often climbed, technical on all sides, and few people have particularly good info or pictures on it. In contract, most Colorado 14ers are hikes, and I suspect that's why the info is better.
jthiessen - May 14, 2002 9:40 am - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentGood info. I never new about this peak.
ScottyS - Mar 10, 2003 10:05 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentCould use some color in the description, but all the photos tell the story --- really helped on my traverse of the Palisades in 2002! That was one scaaaary free-climb.
Henning Lege - Mar 11, 2003 2:44 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentI don't know this peak. But the page looks good and apparently needs protection.
Misha - Mar 11, 2003 8:47 am - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentGood page!
Fred Spicker - Mar 11, 2003 12:35 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentMaybe a brief summary under the History heading for those of us who do not have the referenced book. And, a little more on the climbing.
Martin Cash - Mar 11, 2003 3:34 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentPlease elaborate some more on all sections. Good job so far.
mrolph - Mar 11, 2003 3:37 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentIt's not the most detailed page on SP, but the basic are there and the photos are great.
autoblock - Jun 18, 2003 2:18 pm - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentA little more information on the actual routes would be nice. And what's up with the "traverse" description that somehow calls it a 5.6-5.7 "scramble"? Peter Croft may consider 5.7 a scramble, but most of us don't.
Why is information on California 14ers so much poorer than on Colorado's? Do Californians just want to keep them to themselves?
Romain - Jul 1, 2003 12:47 am - Hasn't voted
Untitled CommentWell, I did not enter the traverse description so I can't amend it. But Webster's dictionary defines to scramble as "to move or climb hastily on all fours". I think 5.7 can qualify.
Do you really think this is enough to justify a rating of 0 stars? I would really appreciate it if you increased it. If not, please propose more constructive ways to improve the page. Starlight is not often climbed, technical on all sides, and few people have particularly good info or pictures on it. In contract, most Colorado 14ers are hikes, and I suspect that's why the info is better.
tlogan - Jan 25, 2004 2:49 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled CommentNice page.
Scott - Apr 8, 2004 5:15 pm - Voted 5/10
Untitled CommentA little more detail to the sections might be nice, but it's a good page.
cp0915 - Aug 22, 2005 12:57 pm - Voted 10/10
Untitled CommentWith 3 routes from 3 directions now on the page, it's starting to come together! A really nice (sub)peak.
James C - Jan 31, 2006 7:46 pm - Voted 8/10
Untitled Commentpretty good, pretty good