Talk:Grogan's Fault

Errors in new page, including name

Apparently someone failed to do homework before editing the new Grogan's Fault page or doing edits related to it at the Coast Redwood page. They added a wrong name of "Juggernaut" which is an entirely different coast redwood. To see the difference, the redwood Juggernaut is documented on the page http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_juggernaut.shtml ... apparently the 40,000 cu. ft. statement is speculation, but isn't as drastic an error as the wrong name. (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No volume has ever been shown for this redwood beyond 38,299 cu. ft. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed unverifiable link. References should be credible

Had to remove an unverifiable anonymous link that had no contact or identity to establish any kind of credentials. Any references should be able to provide a contact, name and some form of experience, certification or credentials to backup claims and information. Good resource will include researchers, arborists, newspaper articles, National Park website, university, extension services, etc.. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It's worth adding that the unverifiable link, now removed and noted above, was probably why a completely incorrect name for this redwood entered the article draft in the first place. A first-hand example of how bad amateur or anonymous stuff can be at proliferating errors no matter how good they look to the eye at first glance. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not reliably sourced

Is there any secondary sourcing for any of the assertions in this article? Right now its primary sourced to the personal website of the person making the assertions. Im inclined to merge or delete at this point.--Kevmin § 03:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Right now, it is sourced to a professional website, not a "personal website". If you reviewed the full content, you would learn the source is a Certified Arborist, and an expert on coast redwoods. The resume' within the background section shows employment doing coast redwood research. That's an authority.

Apparently you removed a potentially beneficial link http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150626/ENTERTAINMENTLIFE/150629873 ... because if it didn't seem like perfect fit for one sentence, it fits another spot. The reference says Atkins and Vaden discovered together in 2014. So even if the tree isn't called out by name, it's "the" coast redwood they found. But the article at minimum published the fact they explored together that year, so there's no mere connect-the-dots about that. It's a plain statement of fact, naming both of them.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

If it offers a head start, this link http://www.mdvaden.com/resume/resume.doc has the resume from the certified arborist's background page. It lists coast redwood research work. And the project coordinator was Steve Sillett, who Wikipedia's page [[1]] for him notes is a scientist. It's the same scientist who was seen working with National Geographic. So if Vaden and Atkins are within this professional network, the references for the page should be rock solid.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

On another note, you could merge this page, etc., as it started not long ago by some other person for whatever reason. But the tree was already noted before that on the coast redwood page, which seemed sufficient at the time. Not sure what the reason was for starting this page. There's enouth reference. But maybe not enough reason or purpose.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

WP sohould be relying in WP:SECONDARY sources, that is why there are reservations about this article, there is only primary sourcing used. Plus using that sole tree to say that Coast redwoods exceeded giant redwoods is a very large stretch.--Kevmin § 15:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Now I see! How silly of me. He posted his resume on his business website, so that's as good as a Wikipedia expert! Someone also recommended we add a website that plagiarized the self claims from this self-certified and self-published self-proclaimed expert.. Soon we'll have a website citing this Wikipedia article as a source and we can complete the circle. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:69 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

PROD

This article has one source, a self-claim on a business website. An article supporter says that because the claim is on a business website that makes the source reliable. No, it doesn't. Anyone can create a business website, and that doesn't make that website a reliable source by Wikipedia standards.

There is only one source, and it is not reliable. There were other claims based on this website which was linked to 21 times in another Wikipedia article which also cited the business website author's credentials within the Wikipedia article as, "certified arborist." The article also insinuated that the tree was secretive in location to protect it (smacks of hoax), and the actual name, if the tree exists, is also in question (smacks of hoax).

Its single source is not reliable; no other published source includes this information; there appears to be an angle to drive viewers to the business website; it may even be a hoax.

This article does not belong on Wikipedia right now; and the information should not be merged with its unreliable source to any other Wikipedia article. When and if this secretive tree, discovered by a businessperson and promoted on their website and Wikipedia, makes it to the news in published sources, an article can be written.

--2602:306:CD1E:44B0:7D32:7D06:B9E8:AE64 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider this article to be some vast conspiracy to promote a business. It is not. The co-discoverer of the tree is Chris Atkins, who discovered Hyperion and many other superlative redwoods. His and MD Vaden's measurements are good enough to be cited extensively in the Gymnosperm Database and Monumental Trees. Vaden has been consulted as a redwood expert in books and articles about big redwoods. And he's a professional nature photographer (an award-winning one, in fact) who was also incidentally a pretty prolific Wikipedia contributor back in the day. As for keeping the location secret, that's a pretty standard practice for big tree hunters and popularizers. The Wild Trees deliberately withheld the location of the Grove of Titans, but amateur sleuths pieced it together anyway, and spread the word, leading to extensive damage to the local ecosystem.

Would more sources improve the article? Absolutely. But the tree is a notable find regardless of whether it ends up being the most massive tree ever discovered. And the sources currently listed are considered reliable and independent within this domain of research. J-Mo 23:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The person who suggested a page deletion may have done insuficient research. Wikipedia does allow websites for a reference. The sole reference is not simply an ordinary reference. It's an expert of 40 years, written about in multiple news articles as a discoverer of world record trees. And a certified arborist, certified by the international society of arboriculture. The same person lists in their resume on the website that they were among a project coordinated by Dr. Sillett, the renown coast redwood researcher. So this is not merely a "business website". This is an expert website. So there's more here if we don't merely skim the surface in a rush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Here a bit more, related to what the person posted previous to my post http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20110123/NEWS/101230353 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Doesn't allow websites?" You didn't even read what I said, and you think you can read and provide evidence? Providing credentials? "Overshadowed?" It's not a reliable source. What garbage. --2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:63 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)