Talk:Bouldering/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wadewitz (talk · contribs) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be reviewing this article! Thanks so much for working on it! Wadewitz (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Well-written: Yes, the article is clear and concise. A few comments about organization and clarity:

~~What about listing chalk as something most boulderers use in the lead?~~
Done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bouldering is a form of rock climbing in which the climber attempts to reach the top of a boulder - Perhaps we should say "usually the top", as I think some boulder problems end before the top.
Alternatively, we could replace "top of a boulder" with "top of a boulder problem", which would include the possibility of a problem ending before the top. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds good. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found a way around this problem by explicitly mentioning traverses. None of the sources I've seen say anything about problems which end before the top-out, so I think it's good as it is now. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is not really a summary of the article - needs to mention every section. Competitions aren't mentioned, for example.
I'll work on expanding the lead once the other content issues are addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) Verifiable: Yes, the article uses good sources and information is cited using inline citations.

3) Broad in coverage: In general, most aspects of bouldering are covered, but there are some things I think need to be added.

~~What do you think about a section on safety and accidents?~~
~~There is no discussion of spotters.~~
Above two points addressed by addition of Safety section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How safe is bouldering in comparison to top-roping? I thought I had read somewhere that there were more accidents bouldering than top-roping - more minor sprains and fractures. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any statistical analysis comparing the frequency of injuries in the two disciplines, but I did find a snippet explaining why bouldering injuries are common. The section has been expanded. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! Wadewitz (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an "Indoor bouldering" subsection, it seems like there should be an "Outdoor bouldering" subsection that talks about some of the famous places and different types of rock that people boulder on, for example, Joshua Tree, Bishop, etc.
Here's where things get tricky, and I'd appreciate your input. What you've suggested is very logical: bouldering is a discipline which takes place in two settings, outdoor and indoor. However, that's not how any of the sources discuss the topic. Literally every source I've read treats "bouldering" as being an outdoor discipline, and indoor bouldering exists only to simulate the outdoor experience. If we added an Outdoor bouldering section, it would become necessary to comb through the article and replace (almost) every instance of "bouldering/boulderer" with "outdoor bouldering / outdoor boulderer". Rather than doing that, I'm thinking I could expand the intro paragraph of Overview, and then tweak Indoor bouldering to make this issue more explicit. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. The problem is that there is so much detail about indoor bouldering, which is why I was thinking about adding detail about the types of rock and places. I like your idea of expanding the intro paragraph. Wadewitz (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Awesome! Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~The "History" section is very sparse - it jumps huge decades. Who are the famous boulderers that need to be included in this history beyond the two already there? What about Daniel Woods, for example?~~
~~What do you think about including a section that discusses famous problems or difficult problems, like this?~~
I tried to incorporate the above two points into one new paragraph in such a way that won't invite fanboys to arbitrarily add on their favorite climbers/climbs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like how you worked that. Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~I also think that the section on bouldering shoes can be expanded. There are lots of different kind of shoes. I think the Wikipedia page should summarize at least as much as the REI page. :)~~
I'm inclined to disagree here. The REI page is certainly comprehensive, and would be an excellent resource for climbing shoe, but very little of the information presented would be useful in a climbing article, and even less is specific to bouldering. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we don't need everything there, but I still think some more detail. One sentence explaining the difference in varieties of bouldering shoes hardly seems sufficient. Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded using the existing references. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! That is so much better! Wadewitz (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Many gyms have VB routes, too. Do we have a source that would support adding that information?~~
Added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~There should also probably be an "Environmental impact" section, considering things like this.~~
Added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great! Wadewitz (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) Neutral: Yes.

5) Stable: Yes.

6) Illustrated: Yes, but it might be nice to have more images of people bouldering on different types of rock. Also, current images need a little more info:

~~File:Bouldering.jpg - This image needs a source - is it the work of the uploader?~~
Err, the description page lists the author and {{GFDL-self}}... what other source information is needed? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - missed the uploader was the author. Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~File:Five Ten Anasazi Verde.jpg - This image says "permission by Five Ten", but there is no OTRS permission or link that illustrates that.~~
Replaced with File:Quechua climbing shoes.jpg. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Indoor Bouldering V3 Rock Spot.webm - The uploader videoed himself? Perhaps, but this be made more explicit in the image description. Usually the photographer and the subject are different people. Also, is the music in the video copyrighted? If so, it will probably have to be edited out.
Clarified that someone else recorded me. If anyone can correctly identify the music in the background (which I can't, even while wearing headphones at full volume), then I'll try to edit it out. Otherwise, I'm not particularly concerned. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, the copyright of the recording is actually owned by your girlfriend. You'll need to put her name or username in the "Author" field and then have her send in an OTRS tkt or just upload it herself under her account. Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...or we could just leave it as is, since it will literally never matter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might someday, especially if this article is ever an FA candidate. At that point, this issue would come up again. It is worth getting it right now so there are never any problems in the future! Then you can be immortalized on Wikipedia for sure! :) Wadewitz (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome that two of the pics are women climbing!

This is a great start to the article! Thanks so much for working on it! The climbing articles are in dire shape here! I'll be away this weekend, but back on Monday. That should give you ample time to address these issues. I see no reason why this can't pass after that. If you have any questions, just let me know! Wadewitz (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One important question: Do you climb? :D --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I do! I've been climbing for about a year. I've mostly been climbing in the gym but am now trying to make the transition to outdoor climbing, which is so beautiful and amazing here in SoCal! What about you? Wadewitz (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fell in love with bouldering about a year and a half ago, and I've been a gym monkey ever since. I recently got a job as floor staff at my gym, and I've gotten the chance to set some routes too. I would kill for the opportunity to set problems at competitions! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Ok, this looks good - am passing now! Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just work on the lead a bit - forgot about that. Wadewitz (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I forgot that too. I'll likely wrap that up either tonight or tomorrow. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead expanded. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I just rearranged a bit. Wadewitz (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]