Talk:Prinzip Hoffnung

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prinzip Hoffnung/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Aszx5000 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 10:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Comments to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   High WP:EARWIG matches are largely down to quotes.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• Is it "greenpointied" or "greenpointed"?
  •  Done, you are right, it is the latter (not fixed)

• The location of the climb should be detailed in the body. Is there any discussion of the geologic formation of the cliff?
  •  Done, added to the history section; am drawing a blank regarding the geology so far.

• Some details about the actual nature of the climb are needed. One source provides the following ""a 40m-long slab line that starts out with a very thin crack. After the crack peters out around the 25-metre point, climbers are forced to move up and right through a desperate and runout crimpy crux. After the crux, another thin crack takes climbers to the top." I am sure there are more details out there.
  •  Done, very good point, have added a "Route" section (per other climbing route articles) that covers this.
    • A couple of things: "a circa. 9-metre (30 ft) narrow crack" probably intends to mean "a crack, around 9m long, which is narrow", but now sounds like it means "an approximately 9m-wide crack", which is clearly not what is meant. You will also have to explain "with a long runout from the last piece of protection being a micro-wire piece in the top of the first crack" a bit more—I am struggling to understand what is being referred to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Made the first change and re-worded the second sentance - does that work? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
        • After a small copyedit, works well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• "redpoint" could be glossed.
  • Do you mean to link it to the glossary term at Glossary of climbing terms#redpoint instead of the article redpoint (climbing)?
    • No, I mean just a short explanation in the body (see MOS:NOFORCELINK). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
      •  Done, understand. added (i.e. after several failed attempts, the first free ascent without falling during that ascent)

• Both quotes in the "Legacy" section could be summarised to say something like "both Cope and Hazelnutt remarked that the climb was like a dream; otherwise the quotes don't really say much at all.
  •  Done. Phrased it as "Both British climber Maddy Cope, and American climber Anna Hazelnutt, said that it was a dream-climb"; I have trimmed the next quote as her comment on the balance of crack climbing vs. slab climbing is interesting.

• What is the reasoning behind detailing the first ten ascents?
  •  Done. The most important/notable rock climbs have their subsequent ascents recorded. It is a real sign of a climb's notability that even decades after the first ascent, the climbing media actively record subsequent ascents (e.g. Realization (climb), one of the most famous and coveted). Of course, some are still so hard, that there are very few (e.g. Dura Dura), if any (e.g. Silence (climb)), repeats.

• "In 2009, Kammerlander said: "Prinzip Hoffnung has an equal significance in my personal development", and "Major climbing projects demand development inside myself and that was exactly the case here"." The second quote is probably unnecessary, or should be paraphrased. For the first, equal significance to what? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done, have paraphrased the second sentance (self-development is a big part of Kammerlander's ethos so worth keeping). He is a major figure in rock climbing and especially multi-pitch climbing where he set List of grade milestones in rock climbing#Redpointed at the grade of 8b+ and 8a+.
    • I'm still not certain what the "equal significance" refers to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
      • He means his other achievements in climbing. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
        • So would it be better to say "Kammerlander remarked in 2009 that the climb had "an equal significance in my personal development" as other major climbing projects which required him to develop himself."? Or something like that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

          I understand what you are trying to get to. I have slightly amended it to: Kammerlander remarked in 2009 that the climb had "an equal significance in my personal development" as his other major climbing projects that had also required him to develop himself. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

          • • Good enough.
• "a bolted sport climb" needs adjustment for MOS:SOB. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

   Done. fixed that Aszx5000 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

Citation numbers refer to this version. Mostly good, other than 9, where I don't see where "the route had only recorded its tenth ascent" is verified in the text. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The reference to the tenth ascent should be in the video that is linked prominently in the article (is it now ref [10]); however I also added another ref [5] to clarify it. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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.