Talk:Mount Diablo

Mount Diablo was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 28, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

California B‑class High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:SFBAProject

Assessment

this article probably qualifies as GA, but needs to go through the nom process. Anlace 04:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viewshed

On talk page I can loosen my tongue a bit. The claim that there is more viewable area from Diablo than anywhere else except Kilimanjaro is commercially motivated. Viewfinder 18:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this link it states that "on a clear day, views from its 3849 foot summit stretch more than 200 miles, Mount Diablo has one of the largest viewsheds in the Western United States" and "Brewer estimated that the view embraced 80,000 square miles, 40,000 in tolerably plain view – over 300 miles from north to south, and 260 to 280 miles from east to west".

While it is true that the viewshed is impressive, and the longest views stretch to 200 miles, the view over the flat plains and the sea does not. This distance can be calculated, in kilometers, by multiplying the square root of the elevation, in meters, by 3.85. This converts 1172m (3845ft) to 132km (82 miles). Within 82 miles, the maximum viewshed is 21,000 square miles, and much of that is cut off by local features. Beyond that distance, only the tops of ridges are visible, and then only on the sides that face the viewpoint, so the surface area viewable is quite small and probably increases the total viewshed to about 22,000 square miles. So the above mentioned estimate that the "view embraced 80,000 square miles" was not scientific and was probably motivated by the desire to create a sensation. Unfortunately it has created a myth that is still widely believed, and even, I am told, taught in schools. Viewfinder 19:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to note that there is a phenomenon in which the view is extended because of the atmosphere bending light which allows a view of Mt. Shasta on the horison. Voodoom 4:31pm GMT, 19 January 2006

I am aware of atmospheric refraction and take it into account. Under normal atmospheric conditions Mount Shasta is not visible from Mount Diablo. But if there is a major atmospheric temperature inversion, the effect of refraction can increase, and this may, just possibly, allow Mount Shasta to be seen. But its distance is 242 miles, so the atmosphere would also have to be exceptionally clear. Viewfinder 05:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

The page needs a redirect from "Mount Diabolo" since many people believe that is how it is spelled. 169.230.94.22 00:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Doopokko 04:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA

I have failed the GA request. For one, there is a severe lack of inline citations, which is an absolute must. Second, there has to be significant cleanup regarding the links and prose, especially in the areas where it's just paragraphs of names and species. I suggest cleaning this article up significantly and attempting a peer review before nominating it again. Good luck! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. It appears that the article is about the mountain, and that the park is part of the mountain's history and current situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Diablo State Park → Mount Diablo — I don't think this will be controversial, but just in case, I'm putting it here. The article is about all aspects of Mount Diablo, so article title should reflect the broader subject. The article even has a mountain infobox rather than a park infobox. I was ready to simply move it myself, but because "Mount Diablo" exists as a redirect page, its not allowing me to make the move. Peter G Werner 09:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Support, as per the reasons I gave in my proposal. Peter G Werner 09:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

This sounds more like a split and not a rename. Which article is the broader? I would think it is the park one since it covers more area, right? Vegaswikian 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*No, the park doesn't cover more area – it pretty much exists entirely on Mount Diablo, though it covers most of the area of the mountain. And by "broader", I mean the article covers the broader historic and geographic aspects of Mount Diablo, predating its existance as a state park. Check out the articles on Mount Tamalpais and San Bruno Mountain versus the articles on their respecitve State Parks. The articles on the mountains themselves are clearly longer and more general. Mount Diablo should be consistant with these. Peter G Werner 03:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.