Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lynn Hill/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lynn Hill

edit

Lynn Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wadewitz (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article for a few months now and I believe it is ready for FAC. Thanks in advance for your helpful comments! Wadewitz (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are loads of errors in the reference linking. Clicking majority of the of the references does not lead to the proper "cited text".--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Inline cites all work properly for me. If you are talking about external links to Google Books and such, it is not always possible to get a link to the actual page. Please list actual citations that need fixing and what needs fixing and I'll see which ones can be fixed. Thanks! Wadewitz (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no, not the external links. I am talking about the actual citations. For example, in the current version, citation number 7 lists Hill & Child 2002. But when I click the Hill & Child, I am not taken to the full book citation (which is listed under Cited Text). Same thing for majority of footnotes, say, for example, 47, 58, 66 and so on.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should split author in last and first (1-9) (maybe author works too somehow, but splitting is a lot easier) and use authorlink, if you want to wiki-link the author. Fixed the 2 cites. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, these are working fine now.

Image review

Drive-by comments This article appears to be very comprehensive and is well illustrated. I won't post a full review of it (as I lack the time and am totally clueless about climbing), but I have the following comments:

  • Watch out for WP:PEACOCK and imprecise magazine-style wording - stuff like "Always athletic" at the start of a sentence, "Hill continues to climb and has not stopped taking on ambitious climbs", "As a result of Hill's impressive climbs in The Gunks, she was invited to climb in Europe in 1986" (foreigners can obviously climb in Europe without an invitation), "Inspired by the difficulty of these climbs and intrigued by European climbing culture", "and was given the opportunity to travel around the world to climb" (what does this mean? - was she prohibited from travelling around the world before, or could she simply not afford to do so without this sponsorship?).
    • "always athletic" - removed
    • "ambitious climbs" - this is in the lede and there needs to be a general statement that indicates she is still climbing hard stuff, albeit not competitively
    • "invited to climb" - she was invited very specifically by the French Alpine Club (this is detailed in the next sentence)
    • "European climbing culture" - yes, this is vague, but the sources don't go into depth
    • "opportunity to travel" - I assume she couldn't afford to travel before, but I don't have a source that says that explicitly, so I can't put that in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What purpose does the material in which Hill praises her sponsor serve in the paragraph which begins with "As of 2013, Hill was a sponsored athlete"? This is pretty vacuous as she's obviously going to say nice things about the company which sponsors her.
  • "Due to her time spent climbing in Europe Hill is fluent in both French and Italian" - presumably she's fluent in these languages because she took the time to learn them, not just because she's spent time climbing mountains in the two countries. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – It can't be. The artist formerly known as Awadewit making a triumphant return to FAC? Talk about a pleasant surprise.

I'll review the rest when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment: I peer-reviewed this in some detail a few weeks ago, and most of my concerns were addressed there. I have no significant problems with the article, and am leaning towards supporting its promotion. Before doing so, I'd like to touch again on a couple of points I raised at the peer review:

  • The impression that the article's tone might seem over-laudatory. For example, in the first few sentences we are told "She was one of the best competitive sport climbers in the world..."; then "She has been described as both one of the best female climbers in the world and one of the best climbers of all time." Three superlatives in the first three lines rather militates against the neutral tone. The latter two "bests" are moderated by "She has been described as...", but the first reads like an endorsement. I think the first "best" should be amended to "leading".
  • The selective citations in the lead, which appear to be against the policy oitlined in WP:WHYCITE

Could you comment on these two aspects? Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The sources actually say the word "best" - multiple sources say this word, so I don't think it is too laudatory. It is not an exaggeration. The reason I am citing those statements is precisely because they will be challenged (as you have!) - they are not uncontroversial statements. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not questioning her status as one of the best climbers. It is the unadorned statement in the first line: "She was one of the best competitive sport climbers in the world..." that is bothersome. This is the "voice of the encyclopedia"; the whole basis of encyclopaedic neutrality is that such statements are avoided. The statements beginning "She has been described as..." are fine; I am not challenging them as you suggest, merely saying that they should be cited in the main text, not in the lead. You are not citing any other lead material. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reworded, using the language from William Shakespeare. And I would really prefer to leave in the citations because saying someone is the "best" is definitely a controversial claim. It is not unprecedented, as the Shakespeare article demonstrates. Moreover, WP:WHYCITE states: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I feel the policy supports this decision. Wadewitz (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


SupportComments

  • Well written and an engaging read, both of which are completely unsurprising to me given Wadewitz's track record. I'm sure to support this in time, and am only holding off for the following minor comments.
  • Should there be references in the lede? My understanding was that the references go into the main text; the lede, which only summarizes the main text and should not add new information, is thus automatically covered. In any case, the current state with a few scattered references seems to be inconsistent. And in stark contrast with the rest of the text, which is comprehensively and consistently supported with references. (I find the policy here somewhat inconsistent, but there it is, I suppose)
    • See the discussion above about the lead references. Wadewitz (talk)
  • slightly confused about "Los Angeles Angeles" - if it's a typo, it's a typo with its own redirect page; the page itself calls them the "Los Angeles Angels", though.
  • "In particular, the ability to conceptualize a series of complex movements as small, distinct ones and to thrive under pressure gave Hill a significant edge." - can't access the source, but if this is based on a direct statement of her, it should be qualified by "Hill believes" or similar.
  • "but she did not have a strong interest in any discipline" - presumably this is "discipline" in the sense of "subject"? Slightly ambiguous; Hill certainly must be a highly disciplined person.
    • Changed to "academic subject".
  • "In the summers of 1976–78 and the early 1980s Hill frequently camped at Camp 4 in Yosemite Valley, becoming part of the climbing community centered there and joining the search and rescue team." - I don't see how that is borne out by the particular reference given here. The mention of Hill in the lawsuit says no more than that she was a member of the American Alpine Club, as far as I can see.
The 'h. Plaintiff LYNN HILL' section does mention the summers of 1976-78 and the search and rescue. I suspect the rest is covered in Pilgrims of the Vertical but don't have the book to check. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General remark: There are now a number of red links, notably for climbers who do not have their own articles. Presumably, those should either be made into stubs, or the names de-wikilinked and some additional info added to the names (in the sense of "Hill climbed with Mari Gingery" being expanded to "Hill climbed with Nepalese climber Mari Gingery", if Mari Gingery should happen to be a Nepalese climber).
    • I don't have time to make articles about the people and things who deserve articles, unfortunately. There is no rule that that says there can't be any redlinks and we should keep them in to indicate where Wikipedia is incomplete. I've tried to identify people where necessary.Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill climbed with and became involved with climber and writer John Long" - John Long is already mentioned in the previous paragraph; if he is being described ("climber and writer"), shouldn't that have taken place in that previous paragraph?
  • "Hill and Long spent the winter of 1981 in Las Vegas, Nevada climbing during the day and working nights" - working as what? Is that specified somewhere?
This claims Hill was a pizza waitress. Long says 'dead-end jobs' in the ref. Presumably Climbing Free would say what he did. Do you think it is important to say? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Climbing Free doesn't say. Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to mention either the pizza waitress or the dead-end jobs. For me, at least, that's useful information; not the specifics, but whether or not her jobs were climbing-related. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added detail. Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill became a world-renowned climber in The Gunks. (Others pictured)" - others, plural? Is there a second person in the image?
Just one. 'Other' or 'another' don't sound right to me. Any better suggestions? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We made them all consistent, too. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill's competitive climbing career began in the mid-1980s, but one of her first significant accomplishments was in 1979." - I have no idea what "competitive climbing" means, not being familiar with that whole community. To make the article more accessible, it would be great if you could add an explanatory sentence.
  • "She became the first person to free climb the 5.12d Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado" - again, to make the article more accessible to non-climbers, a brief interjection like "Ophir Broke in Ophir, Colorado, which has a difficulty rating of 5.12d in the Yosemite Decimal System," would have been helpful. Sure, I can click the wikilink, but that always breaks the flow of reading. Also, unless I click the wikilink, the fact that something with a .12 is apparently fiendishly difficult passes me by completely.
Doesn't the next sentence make it clear it must be very difficult? JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've had a lot of discussion about how to make this article accessible. Unfortunately, to understand climbing grades, you simply have to read about them. We did try to put in context like "the hardest route ever climbed by a woman at that time" and "the hardest crack climb in Colorado at the time" - do these help? Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is about encountering the 5.12d without any indication why it is there. That certainly breaks my reading flow. I do, in the next sentence, get the information that this particular climb is difficult, but unless I click the link, I don't see that the ".12" bit actually refers to difficulty. For all I knew before, it could have been a topographical numbering system in the park, or within Ophir Broke, or something along those lines. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Reworded to indicate that 12d is a difficulty rating. Wadewitz (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she hung on the rope to gain more information about the climb" - that's not clear to me. Is this hanging on the rope during the climb, instead of climbing down again? Or is she rappelling down to scout the climb first? I have no idea how this works, and a more accessible description would be greatly appreciated.
Presumably she is lead-climbing up to a certain point, putting in a piece of gear and quickdraw, clipping her rope to this and then letting go of the rock to hang from the rope. Possibly the letting go was entirely accidental although she'd be likely to end up further away from the difficult section. Either way it would then enable her to have a rest and to study the best way to climb the problematic section. She could then either re-attach herself to the rock or get her seconder to lower her down to start the pitch again and start climbing again.
I can add in the description Jmiall gives above, but none of it is in the source, so it is a bit of a stretch. Let me know what you think. The sources presume a basic knowledge of climbing, unfortunately. Wadewitz (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jmiall's explanation is probably too much detail at this point. Is there a way of phrasing this less technically? From what I gather from your explanations, this is about not breaking off immediately after failing, but instead using the fact that one is already up there to scout the terrain for the next attempt. If some re-formulation along these lines is possible, that would be helpful, I think. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"rather than begin the climb again every time she fell or leaned on the rope for support, she hung on the rope in her harness to gain more information about the climb" - Current wording. Let me know how to make this clearer. I'm not really sure at this point. Wadewitz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For instance, she had resisted hang-dogging, holding with the philosophy that it was cheating, but after experimenting with it during her ascent of Vandals, she found it a useful way to learn challenging climbs" - again, an in-text explanation of hang-dogging would make the reading go more smoothly. Also, how is hang-dogging different from the "she hung on the rope to gain more information" we had earlier? What is the sequence here?
There's no difference. The normal term is hangdog. This part is just restating the same point again in a section on her climbing 'philosophy' and how it changed (as general opinion did). JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - we used more general language before and more specific at this point. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...as long as the choice of words makes it clear that this is the same. That's what's important for me as a non-climber to make the connection. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading the current version, I think a general reader would not make the connection. Could you please tie in the hang-dogging with the earlier more explicit explanation (which I think was a very accessible solution)? Markus Pössel (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wadewitz (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especially rappel-bolted climbing." - the two separate wikilinks don't make it clear to me what is meant here; again, a brief in-text explanation would be great.
As I understand it this just means climbs that have been bolted in the normal sport climbing way so you fix gear to the bolt rather than directly use the bolt to help you ascend. Sport climbing would make more sense to me as a link here but it has been linked more than once earlier in the article. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I was using the language from the source. Part of the problem with the links is that climbing articles are just abysmal. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important for readers like me to at least get the general idea. If the specifics of rappel-bolted climbing are crucial to make sense of this statement, they should be alluded to. If they're not, consider leaving out the phrase altogether and find some more general wording. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads "especially sport climbing that required the insertion of fixed bolts into the rock". Wadewitz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1990, at a superfinal for the World Cup Final" - what's a superfinal?
I suspect this means that there were a set of routes in the final that lots of people completed so there was then a superfinal to try to separate them. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was trying to avoid too much detail about the intracies of the World Cup - should I add more? Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding (or taking away) just enough to not make this a stumbling stone would be good. Might the apparent analogy with playoffs, a more common term for all I can see, help? Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, none of the sources make it entirely clear what this term means. It seems at the time that the rules were rapidly changing at these competitions (during this competition, the rules changed during the competition itself), so I'm not sure that anyone actually knows (or if they do, they didn't write it down). Wadewitz (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we somehow get around this term, then? "At the competitions final climb", for instance? That doesn't use final as a noun (which would indeed lead to confusion final vs. superfinal), and should be accessible. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 'at the final stage of the World Cup Final' JMiall₰ 23:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1990, Hill set another landmark by becoming the first woman to redpoint a consensus 5.14, Masse Critique in Cimaï, France" - an in-text explanation for red-point would be appreciated, also, how is a "consensus 5.14" different from any other 5.14?
Consensus means that several (or more) people agree with that grading. Different climbers may grade a route differently or there may not have been many people to have climbed it. The implication from reading this would be that a woman had previously redpointed a 5.14, but it was a route that was later downgraded, or a route that most climbers don't grade as 5.14.JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added explanation for redpoint. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The redpoint explanation certainly helps. Is there a way of getting around the "consensus" bit, may be by some kind of reformulation? Markus Pössel (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth it - removed the word. Wadewitz (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hill did not regard sport climbing to be real climbing" - was that a change of mind, or did she reluctantly sport-climb all the time she was doing competitions?
I don't think any of the sources say it was a change of mind. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JMiall - she seemed to always believe that sport climbing was fundamentally different than "real" climbing, or her first love, traditional climbing. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From the source, it's unclear what exactly she's talking about: "It's a whole different thing... It's not really climbing."[2] The source is talking about "sport climbing", but the term sport climbing has changed meaning since it was introduced. From context it appears she was talking about competition sport climbing on artificial walls. I don't think from that source we can generalize to the current wording. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Asked why she was motivated to climb The Nose, Hill has said:" - the block quote layout here is a bit confusing, as the (non-indented) following paragraph is pushed to the right by the next image. Please consider re-arranging the images to make this less ambiguous.
Image moved by a paragraph.JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean. If we put the image on the right, the block quote won't be indented at all, so this is the best layout. Wadewitz (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least in my browser, it is now properly indented. Although there's an image on the right. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are different variations of "free-climb" and "free climb", with and without dash. Please make this consistent.
  • "Hill repeatedly tells a story" - you're giving a single reference; if she told the story repeatedly, shouldn't that be supported by giving references to multiple retellings?
  • "because Title IX funding mandated equal access in public schools to boys and girls in athletics" - I'm unsure about the prepositions here, and about the order of qualifiers. In order of importance, "equal access for boys and girls to athletic programs in public schools" sounds more appropriate to me.
  • "As of 2013, Hill was a sponsored athlete for the Patagonia gear and clothing company." - this shouldn't be in a section with the title "media". Should this move to "World traveler", the last of the chronological-biographical sections as far as I can see? Markus Pössel (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Media section is in chronological order too. Being a sponsored athlete for Patagonia to a large extent will mean appearing on posters or in videos for them so it isn't a terrible place to put it. Anyway I've moved it for now. JMiall₰ 19:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been busy with family affairs the past few days - thanks for jumping in! Wadewitz (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Support as all my comments have now been addressed. Markus Pössel (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • General:
    • YOu link a lot of the technical terms but it wouldn't hurt to have a few of them briefly explained in the text. You can gather some meaning from the context - but things like "redpoint" "pitches" and some idea of the scale of the various grades would help.
      • If you could point out specific places in the article, that would help. We've been working on this quite a bit and I know "redpoint" is already explained as are the various difficulties of various climbs. I tried quite specifically to give a lay description of how hard specific climbs are. There is no real way to explain the grades without reading the article, I'm afraid. I've added a bit for "pitch". Wadewitz (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • "From 1986 to 1992 Hill was one of the world's most accomplished sport climbers, winning over 30 international titles, including five victories at the Arco Rock Master." My understanding of MOS says that when you're comparing two equivalent things, you use either both ordinals or both numerals.
  • Childhood:
  • Introduction:
  • Climbing career:
    • "Her lead of Yellow Crack was a very dangerous ascent, her husband and climbing partner at the time.." husband? Last we heard of her love life was that she parted from Long in 1983 or so....
  • Competative career:
  • World traveler:
    • "For two thousand dollars, participants received..." context... lots of places have dollars as currency. Also later in the media section, same deal with the prize amounts for the TV show.
  • Personal life:
    • "Hill endorsed Barack Obama in the 2012 US election on the basis of his support for protection of national parks and wilderness areas in the USA." Two things here - personal life isn't a great fit for this and is it really relevant to her life and climbing? Is she outspoken on lots of political views or is this a one time thing?
      • She is somewhat outspoken on environmental issues. And there seemed to be no other place to put this. Let me know if you think it should be removed. Wadewitz (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It just feels very odd here. We don't discuss the fact that she's outspoken on enviromental issues - maybe if we had that detail we'd see why the endorsement is noteworthy. Right now, it just looks like trivia thrown in with no real relevance to her life/career. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks pretty dang good, just a few bits of jargon and some tiny quibbles before I'm totally comfortable supporting. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Given the number of other reviews I'm involved in at the moment, and the lack of time I have for them, I'm going to post my opinion now instead of waiting. I have full confidence that the other reviewers' comments will be resolved adequately, and think that the article as a whole is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Wadewitz (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Welcome back to FAC, it is your first time here under this moniker, isn't it?

  • I've seen the discussion on the wording in the lead and, though I realise you've tried to accommodate concerns, I've decided to be bold and reduce the "best"s by one. Obviously that can be discussed further but "best" without any elaboration will I think appear very subjective to the average reader.
    • People are still bold on Wikipedia! *gasp*!!
  • Also in the lead, "setting records for women and men alike" reads oddly to me -- I presume it means women's records and absolute or 'open' records, is there some way we can rephrase?
  • There's quite a few duplicate links in the article, you might like to check with Ucucha's duplink script and see what you can do without. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are to help with the jargon and climbing grades and, in my opinion, really need to remain to facilitate ease of comprehension by non-climbers. Wadewitz (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The climbing grades I understand but linking free climb six times seems to be overdoing it; also you don't need to re-link El Capitan when you link the Nose in the same breath, nor Yosemite Valley when you're linking El Capitan immediately before -- pls review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lynn_Hill/archive1&oldid=1136096718"