Talk:Mount Bona

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains High‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Alaska Mid‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elevation

It would be nice to get a definitive height for this peak; the uncertainty is much larger than it should be for a major peak in the United States. But reputable sources give widely varying accounts. --Spireguy 03:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unable to find the source for the current elevation and prominence given in the infobox. It's probably given by one of the non-web references. The few online sources I checked all had different values. RedWolf (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to beat the dead dog a little more here is what I found.

Bivouac.com – Elevation: 5045 m 16552 ft Prominence: 2095 m

Peakbagger.com – Elevation: 5029+ m 16500+ ft Prominence: 2072 m 6800 ft

PeakList.org – Elevation: 16500 ft Prominence: 6800 ft

SummitPost – Elevation 16421 ft 5005 m

So SummitPost wins as the source used for elevation for what its worth. Counting 100 ft map contours on the topo map you can see that the cartographer thought it was over 16500 feet. The webmaster at Peakbagger in an email said he gets his elevations form the topo maps so we know he is in the ballpark. And maybe Bivouac isn't so far off. Then again its a snow covered peak all year. The snowpack could vary by a tens of feet depending on what time of year you happen to look. I'm going to think about it some more. --DRoll (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found list from the Park Service that seems reliable. It agrees with the SummitPost. It gives the elevation of Mount Churchill 15,638 feet so it is NGVD 29. I added a citation. I also commented out the prominence given until we find a source. --DRoll (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]