Talk:Pinkham Notch

	Pinkham Notch 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 14, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 26, 2007 Peer review Reviewed April 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted October 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: New Hampshire / New Hampshire Mountains Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains (assessed as High-importance). Mountains Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Removed stub-tag, as it's big enough. -- 69.177.53.201 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As suggested, I changed the recreation section because it reads too much like a travel guide. -- 69.177.53.201 22:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is well written. Pass. In fact, it's excellent.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Fail.

Unlike other encyclopedias, which are written by experts or professional editors, with kids to feed and reputations to be protected, Wikipedia is written by people who are anonymous. Because of this, Wikipedia doesn't even attempt to assure readers that their articles are true; instead it aspires that everything be verifiable. There will be few readers who look at all 80 citations an article may have, although a 9th-grader working on a science project may do exactly that. What is more common is that someone will click on several links, auditing the article to see if it can be trusted.

If it takes 2 hours and 58 minutes to write a paragraph (you folks obviously did NOT just dash this article off the top of your heads), adding cites as you write it means it takes 3 hours and 2 minutes. After all, the material is right in front of you. Trying to add cites later is likely to take another hour, because you can't remember where everything came from. I'm sorry for that, but there are no Special Olympics for Wikipedia articles. It's either good, or it's not good. Or, as Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it, unless it has proper citations, it's not acceptable.

I recommend using footnotes. You simply click on the <ref></ref> in blue below the edit window, and the <ref></ref> appears in the article, with the cursor smack-dab in the middle, ready for you to type. A good way to format URL is <ref>Title of page by author [http://urlhere http://urlhere], retrieved September 23, 2006</ref>. That's not the only style that's acceptable, but it's fairlyl easy. Most web pages don't list an author, and you can omit it if it does. Title can be pretty flexible. Pasting the URL in twice, the first one says where to go if clicked, and the second one lets the user see where he would go if he clicked it. Putting the date there lets the user search for the page on the Wayback Machine (http://archive.org) if the page disappears to the kingdom of 404.

3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass.

5. It is stable. Marginal but Pass.

The big thing is edit wars. That doesn't seem to be the case here, but part of the idea is that if the article has been changing rapidly, it probably will continue to change a lot, so let's wait until the article matures before we assess it.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Pass.

It'd be nice if the images were a little larger, though.

Looks like it would be a great article, if you had citations. While it would appear that this is not a controversial subject, in fact, tourism is a big industry, and when there's a lot of money involved, trust is a big issue. I hope you continue to improve this article. It certainly looks like it's worth the effort.

The article has now been given sufficient inline citations. On the basis of this review, I will pass it as a good article. Choess 21:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I agree for Choess. It's really nice to see such a fine piece of work as this article. You should be proud.

Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Although the Appalachian Trail is in the notch, it does not transverse its length, or provide passage through the notch itself. NH 16 runs through it in its entirety, and connects the two areas on either side of the pass. If you think it still should belong,however, go ahead and change it back. I don't mind. -- Sturgeonman 15:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. But "The trails in Pinkham Notch are part of the 2,000-mile Appalachian Trail system,..." makes it sound as if all the trails are part of the AT. I'm not crazy about my previous sentence either, though. Maybe "the Appalachian Trail, a 2,000-mile hiking path from Georgia to Maine, crosses Pinkham Notch between Washington and Wildcat." Or something. —wwoods 16:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll fix it. -- Sturgeonman 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add more info about the many animals in the area and a hiking map of Mt. Washington would be great. I hiked this the other day and I saw what I think was a fisher cat kill a hare. It was intense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.184.81 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the part about Mt. Washington rising almost 4000 feet above the floor of the notch, to say that it rises more than 4000 feet above the floor of the notch. The height of land in the notch is barely over 2000 feet; Washington is 6288'.

Nice article in general, by the way. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkham Notch was likely discovered long before 1784 209.112.184.9 (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]