Talk:Mixed climbing/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Aszx5000 (talk · contribs) 21:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead forms a clear overview, and is suitably linked.

The mention of grades in the lead is probably fine to avoid lengthy glosses; a link might help.

The prose is admirable, dealing well with the specialist language.

The organisation into sections is sensible and readable.

I'm not sure the evolution list works as well as it should. You might consider using a table, with columns for Date, Route, Place, Grades, First climb, Notes: this would make comparison (and the message) clearer.

Because some of these grades get revised with time, I have preferred the more "informal" format of a bulleted list per the List of grade milestones in rock climbing article; whenever a rock climbing grade milestone gets reset, within 48 hours, some IP will amend that article; whereas the more rigid German version which is in a full table has become out of date.?

There is quite a lot of overlinking, especially in the Evolution entries, but also in the lead and History. The Highlight duplicate links tool is worth using.

Will check that. I thought that in "bullet lists" it was okay/correct to keep linking terms? Also conscious that there are a lot of technical terms in this so trying to help in that regard. However, am open-minded on this issue?

Some might ask for "American YDS" grading to be spelt out, but I guess the wikilink is sufficient.

I have given the full term now.

The mention of aid climbing will have non-climbers who happen here guessing; between the lines, I hear that use of technical aids is deprecated by some purist climbers? Perhaps there should be some sort of explanation or note about the context here.

I have added a note but also clarified more in the body about the distinction between aid and free climbing.

The banning of ice axe leashes is understandable if they make climbing too easy; but I wonder about the risk of dropping an axe while fixing a screw or other attachment device ... it's not permitted to have a thin safety line on the tool?

They do and good spot! I have added the "ice tool tether" to the list of equipment which is more common now that leashes are going (although they are often confusingly called leashes!!!)

Images

All the images are well-chosen, giving a feeling for many aspects of the activity, and very well captioned.

All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.

Sources

[1] Buhay seems to have moved, maybe you can find an archive.

[5] Nelson ditto.

[9] Takeda ditto.

[17] Alpinist ditto.

[36] Czyz ditto.

All the other linked sources are fine. The few book sources are AGF.

Given the above dead links, I suggest you archive all the other magazine/website links to future-proof the article.

[30] is the same as [8] Hansman. Please merge the refs.

Copyvio checks

The grade definitions (which pop up as a possible...) are quoted in full and attributed, which seems entirely necessary here.

Summary

This is a very well-constructed article. Apart from the dead refs there is little to ask; I've just made a couple of tentative suggestions, close to questions really. I look forward to seeing it at GA shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To save faffing about, I've run InternetArchiveBot on the whole article, and merged the two identical refs. [36] Czyz is really dead and unarchived, but as it's redundant to two other sources I've commented it out. My questions remain on file (and I'd be delighted to hear the answers) but they aren't showstoppers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for those comments Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) which I have hopefully been able to address above. Ref [36] is gone for good but as you say, there are others. Really appreciate you pushing this GA to conclusion while I was away. Much appreciated. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.