Owner Review: Mountainsmith Wisp Sleeping Bag - Stephen Blankenship
Pretty good. Some small edits, but nothing really major.
When you have done the edits could you please REPOST to this channel, with
the word REPOST at the start, and I will pick it up again. At that stage I
would like to see the html version with any pics in the Test/Owner Review
The normal code is:
EDIT: must fix
Edit: should consider seriously
Comment: just that
EDIT: pure numeric dates are confusing between countries. Could you change
the '4' to April please - any format, as long as it is clear. (eg 22-Apr-05,
Apr-22 2005, whatever)
>* Manufacturer: Mountainsmith (www.mountainsmith.com)
EDIT: make sure this is clickable in the html please.
> -Temperature rating: 30 F (-1.1 C)
EDIT: sleeping bag ratings are unbelievable anyhow, so '(-1 C)' would be
> -Size: Regular = 84 in x 32 in (213 cm x 81 cm)
> -Stuff size (approximate): 6 x 10 in (15.24 x 25.40 cm)
EDIT: quoted or measured? Both would be nice of course. But '(15 x 25 cm)'
is enough precision.
> Product Description:
> The Wisp is a very light and packable 3-season sleeping bag. The bag is
> collar. This is one of the lightest sleeping bags on the market, and it
> is a good choice for any lightweight backpacker. Some extra features
EDIT: it is not clear whether you are quoting the vendor here or whether
these are your own comments.
If you are quoting, OK, although it would be preferred if you could make
If these are your own words, then the section 'and it is a good choice for
any lightweight backpacker' should be removed as it is what we call
'projecting'. (See the Survival Guide for more info on this.)
> -Most of the fill is placed in the the foot box, torso, head and draft
> tube areas to increase insulating efficiency
Comment or Edit: so where else is there to put the fill? But ignore my comme
nt if this is all quoted from the vendor.
> inside of a hammock, and in temperatures down to 25 F (-3.88 C).
EDIT: '(-4 C)' is sufficient.
> - My main concern with buying a lightweight sleeping bag was if I would
Edit: 'was whether I would have ...' is better English
> While I am of fairly average size, I would expect
> someone who weighed as much as 50 lb (22.68 kg) more than me to feel
> comfortable inside this bag.
EDIT: bit of a fine line here. We do insist on avoiding 'projecting', and
technically this is that. To keep everyone happy, could you change this to a
more personal statement, along the lines of 'I think I would still be
comfortable inside this bag even if I was as much as 50 lb (23 kg) heavier.'
Note the metric precision too.
> don't believe that I would want to stuff the Wisp into a smaller stuff
> sack, because it does fit nice and tight. For an example, this bag fits
> perfectly into the lower compartment of my Gregory Advent Pro, which is
> a fairly small backpack made for adventure racing.
Edit: too many commas. I recommend deleting the ones after 'sack' and after
> have not yet tore or punctured the bag, but I am constantly worried
EDIT: 'torn', not 'tore'
> about it happening. This is because the outer shell feels about as
> durable as a standard trash bag. I am not saying that it is not a
Comment: actually, Airnet is moderately robust. It should last. Pity it went
off the market so soon.
> usually less durable materials. This will most likely be a concern with
> any lightweight sleeping bag.
EDIT: could you make this sentence more personal please. Something like
'This would be a concern for me with any lightweight sleeping bag.'
> - I have slept with the Mountainsmith Wisp inside of a Hennessy Hammock
EDIT: 'inside a Hennessy ...', omit 'of'
> in temperatures down to 25 F (-3.88 C). This is definitely a good test
> of this sleeping bags warmth rating [which is 30 F (-1.1 C)]. I would
EDIT: too much precision in the conversions. -4 C and -1 C are suitable.
> I was comfortable in the bag down to 25 F, but I was also wearing long
EDIT: metric please
> - I would give this product an overall grade of A-.
EDIT: please delete the sentence. We don't give grades - they can be an
endless source of argument! (Who defines the scale?)
>light product, you do sacrifice durability and possibly some warmth.
EDIT: I sympathise, but please change the 'you' as it is classified as