Talk:Mount Baker
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
 |
Mount Baker has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
|
||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article was a Collaboration of the Month of WikiProject Volcanoes, from May 1st through May 30th of 2008, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
Contents |
[edit] Topics
Anyone know if you can still ski Baker? There was a movement to close it down.
The place is so popular (especially with snowboarders) that if it were to close, someone else would re-open the resort. There was the threat of an early end to the ski season in 2005 due to unusually light snowfall, but the weather from late March through mid-April was cool and precipitation-rich. The resort expects to stay open through April 24.
- They're advertising season tickets for 2007-08 on their webpage. Brilang 16:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Would it be suitable to change "hydrothermally altered rock" in the beginning of the Geology section to "metamorphic rock" ? --CraSH 03:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Another Mount Baker...
I'd like to turn this page into a disambig, so as to differentiate the two Mount Bakers -- this one in Washington, the other in Alberta (Mount Baker (Alberta), part of the Waputik Range). This is per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Naming_conventions
Thoughts?
-- ghoti 17:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if there is much point in disambiguating until the Mount Baker (Alberta) article is written. Also, if one peak is much more likely to be the search target than the other, the approach taken by the Glacier Peak article may be better. In this case, Glacier Peak, New Zealand has been redlinked for months. A dab page for Glacier Peak would be annoying to the reader since it adds a step for someone looking for the one in Washington and is unhelpful to someone looking for the one in New Zealand. Disambiguation links are covered under the WP:DAB guidelines under disambiguation links. Thanks for bringing this up. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that Mount Baker (Alberta) is bluelinked, I think it is fine to dab; might still be good to use a disambiguation link in Mount Baker rather than a dab page as proposed above. My guess is that with 3 million people near Mount Baker (Seattle, WA area and Vancouver, BC), more people will be looking for the one in Washington, than the one in Alberta. (Full disclosure; I live in Seattle.) Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- There's a third Mount Baker: 11km SE of Cranbrook BC: *Bivouac.com "Mount Baker" search
- [http://bivouac.com/MtnPg.asp?MtnId=9190 Bivouac.com entry for "third" Mt Baker.
-
- Further comment is that it would seem that the Mount Baker on Puget Sound was named more than a century earlier than the one in the Rockies, so it's not just notoriety/visibility, it's seniority; 1792 naming for the Mount Baker near Vancouver and Bellingham, 1898 for the one in the Rockies.Skookum1 01:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I believe that the Mount Baker in Washington is the dominant meaning. The ol' Google test yields ---
- "Mount Baker" Washington: 458,000 hits
- "Mount Baker" Alberta: 37,300 hits
- "Mount Baker" "British Columbia" 88,000 hits (some of these may be for the first peak)
- "Mount Baker" Ruwenzori: 1,170 hits
- So, leaving the Washington peak at Mount Baker follows the guidelines at WP:DAB hike395 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe that the Mount Baker in Washington is the dominant meaning. The ol' Google test yields ---
-
[edit] Easy Way Up - Snowmobile Up Mt Baker - Is It Possible / Legal
I have heard that it is possible and legal to snowmobile up to the top of Mt. Baker (Washington State). I'm looking for validation that this is possible (and legal). In addition, I'd like to hear from other that have done it (or been most of the way up). Ideally, I'm looking for someone to take me -- or resources as to what people/vendors might be able to get me to the top of the mountain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gonezo (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 August 2006.
- The summit, Grant Peak, is protected from motorized use since it is within Mount Baker Wilderness. However, this page is to discuss the article and issues related to its improvement, not to ask tourism questions. See WP:TALK for how to use talk pages. You might try http://wikitravel.org/en/Main_Page for travel information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article?
This must have been reviewed ages ago, it's shocking that a relatively short article with no inline-citations, and the photo layout problems of this one could get GA status. Murderbike (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I only rated the article GA because that's what the status was when I rated WikiProject Volcanoes. If you look through the history, you will see that it was GA before I rated it. I agree the article is too short and it's probably better if it were rated B or start class. Longer Cascade volcano articles include: Mount Meager and Mount Shasta which are rated B class. Black Tusk 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha, sorry to throw the blame your way. I'm gonna drop it down to Start Class, though I'm not a Mountain/Volcano expert, so maybe someone else could be better at it. But, I don't think that B-Class can be reached without AT LEAST having inline-cites. Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eh, so I'm not gonna reassess it, as there's a process for delisting GAs, and I don't have the time to deal with it right now. Murderbike (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gotcha, sorry to throw the blame your way. I'm gonna drop it down to Start Class, though I'm not a Mountain/Volcano expert, so maybe someone else could be better at it. But, I don't think that B-Class can be reached without AT LEAST having inline-cites. Murderbike (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] For an FA...
This article is close to FA. However, I have listed the things it needs to become FA.
- References
Done
- Additional Images (one or two) Done
That's all. Thanks. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's that close to meeting the FA criteria yet. I don't know much about the subject, but the article doesn't feel comprehensive to me; for example, there's nothing about how or even whether the area is protected (except a link to Mount Baker Wilderness in the "See also" section). The lead section seems unbalanced, giving a lot of space to details of geography and little to the geology (which accounts for half the rest of the article). The link farm at the end should be cut back (see WP:EL). No doubt there are many other places where we're not following the style guidelines, too. -- Avenue (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize. I meant to state that this is what we should do and then we would review our changes. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Part 2-
- Watch for Mos breaches Done-seems good for now.
- References (30-40)
- Work on lead Done
Once we accomplish these, we'll see what else we need. Meldshal42Hit meWhat I've Done 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
