Talk:Webster Sycamore/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chhe (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is really lacking in citations. Doesn't meet GA standards in that regards.Chhe (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only two pictures are shown. A good article really needs more than just two.Chhe (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: A lead does not need citations, as the content there is referenced later in the body. The lead is a summary of the article. Also, good articles don't need any images, there is no requirement of them. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chhe, first and foremost, thank you for engaging in this GA review. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and more specifically WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Therefore, because all the lede's information is cited below in the main prose, there are no inline citations required, as Burklemore1 has shared above. Also, per Section 6 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria, "Illustrated, if possible, by images." Therefore, GA criteria have no minimum requirement for images. All three images I've used are images that are "tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content" and "are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions." For further information, please consult Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think the article is very poorly researched, poorly cited, and there aren't enough images that illustrate what is being discussed in the article to be considered for good article status at the present time. It would be good if there was an image of the stump or location where the tree once stood, a picture of the tree in modern times (in color), and pictures of the park itself. Without these things the article is visually marginal.Below is a more comprehensive list of the things I think need to be fixed to get it to good article quality.

As one example of horrible research the article quotes "Out of all the native species of hardwood trees in the United States, the American sycamore grows to the largest trunk diameter.[3]". This is a laughable claim. Quite a few american hardwoods presently alive have bigger CBH trunks, Eastern Black Oaks and the Duffie oak are just two examples. So how is it that all of these modern day American sycamores are coming in with smaller CBH values? There have been claims that there once was a sycamore that Washington once measured at 44 feet, but then again I have never heard of any modern day sycamores of that size and its hard to believe this measurement is accurate considering that modern day measurements all have the American sycamore as having nowhere near the largest diameter. And American Chestnuts before the blight could be even bigger. Either way this is a highly questionable claim made by some reporter. You might want to have a look at http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bigtree/great_eastern_trees.htm to get an idea of where American Sycamores shape up.
In many places the wording is poorly phrased and inconsistent. For example, "Due to their longevity of up to 500 years, American sycamores persist in remaining old-growth forests." but later you list this particular tree as being older than 500 years.
In other places the wording is not encyclopedic, such as in "Curt Tonkin of the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources' law enforcement section noted that the sycamore had been a landmark for "several hundred years."".
In other areas you claim the source says things that it doesn't as in "By 1920, author Edwin Lincoln Mosely included an image and a brief description of the Webster Sycamore in his book Trees, Stars and Birds: A Book of Outdoor Science.[13]". You may be right that this is the same tree, but this is a pure guess on your part and original research. As such the whole reference and image that goes along with it should be removed from the article.
Another problem is that the article's main information seems to rely virtually entirely on one source namely Gillespie, W. H. (June 1955). "Notes and News". Castanea (Morgantown, West Virginia: Southern Appalachian Botanical Society): 71–73. ISSN 1938-4386. OCLC 57659851. All the other references seem to be fluff.
In other areas you really manipulate what the reference was saying obviously because you can't find any useful info about this particular tree as in "During the beginning of their search, the department noted the Webster Sycamore as an example of the type of tree they were seeking.[15]". This paragraph with this sentence should be removed. Its irrelevant.
At one point you state "In 1964, it was estimated that the tree's seeding occurred around 1356 AD.[16] By 2008, it was estimated that the tree was over 500 years old, which would have placed its seeding before 1508 AD.[11]" So why such the huge difference in age estimates? What methods were used for age determinination? A lot of information is missing.
Unencyclopedic-->"According to West Virginia University biologist W. H. Gillespie in Castanea, the tree stood as "a memorial of the original virgin forest."[14]"
Its very unclear from all of your sources which name is most common Webster Sycamore or Webste Springs Sycamore. I think this might reflect a problem of notability above anything else.
In the intro "The Webster Sycamore (alternatively known as the Webster Springs Sycamore and the Big Sycamore Tree) was an American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) in the U.S. state of West Virginia." should be referenced.

In general I think you need to rely less on online sources. Some of them may be good, but you really need to go to the library and search beyond this to produce a well researched article, for which this article is not.Chhe (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chhe, it was highly unorthodox of you to close this review without giving me an opportunity to address your concerns in a timely manner. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing unorthodox about it. The review is for the purpose of getting someone else's opinion as to whether the article meets good article status. You got it. I don't think this article even comes close, and the changes I think should be made I suspect will take some time or in the case of additional wiki friendly photos might be impossible to get. I'm not going to keep the review open and lead you on with the impression that you can convince me that the sky ain't blue. So I got the review back to you fast so as not to waste your time. If you disagree with the review, setup a 2nd opinion with the associated tag. Some articles in my opinion just can't be brought to good article status, because they deal with such specific obscure subject matters. I don't know if this is one of them.Chhe (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chhe, the GA review process is a dialogue, where you raise legitimate concerns within the confines of Good Article criteria, and I have an opportunity to respond and incorporate your suggestions into the article. Rarely are reviews shuttered in this fashion. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, its only a dialogue when the article can be quickly fixed up. When the article is an obvious fail it can be quickly failed without discussion. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Good article nominations, I seem to recall it mentioning that there.Chhe (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]