Talk:Old Tjikko/GA1

GA Review

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

1) Well-written:

The article is well written . OK
It lacks a lot to fulfill the Wikipedia:Layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. The article should have a lead and several subheadings. Not OK

2) Factually accurate:

The discription of the facts is OK. OK
Wikipedia:Reliable sources suggests that books or peer reviewed journal should be used. And what I think there should be several science articles and with luck a book on google books as possible source for the biological phenomenon. Not OK

3) Broad in its coverage:

A little bit is missing on the point why a clone adds up the lifetime and is considered to form a old individium. For mee this looks like a strawberry can be as old, as long it only used Stolon for reproduction. Could be improved

4) Neutral:

Article shows a NPOV.OK

5) Stable:

Article is stable.OK

6) Illustrated:

The article is lacking a image. A image of a Norway Spruce, even it is not the old one would help.Could be improved

Stone (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1b. Article is too short for a lead and subheadings. Note that good articles do not have a requirement for length. If you insist that it have sections, I can make them... but they will be so small it would be pointless. Note that WP:Layout states that the guidlines should be "treated with common sense and the "occasional exception".

2b. This is a relatively new discovery. There are no books, papers, or journals which have covered this plant. Trust me, I've searched for it. There might be some new information since the last time I checked the standard google search results, but I just checked google books and google scholar again and there are no results. Most of Leif Kullman's research is about global warming with respect to the tree-line changes on mountains in Sweden, not specifically about this tree. This tree seems to be a simple "accidental" discovery, as finding old trees was not his goal. Searching for "old tjikko" gives zero search results, but searching for Leif Kullman gives a lot of results regarding global warming (and mostly from the 90s to the early 00s, nothing much past 2002, and the tree was only discovered last year in a remote location). I will keep searching, but I am skeptical about finding anything more than is already present in the article.

3. Not quite sure what you mean. And yes you are right, a strawberry can be as old. A stolon is basically vegetative cloning or layering, which Old Tjikko is using. The fact that the remains of roots around the tree have been carbon dated to over 9,000 years, and according to Umea University they "display clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup of the tree above them". I dunno if this means they DNA tested them, or simply used logical deduction to determine that these long-dead roots were from the same tree.

6. GAs are not required to have an image, and there is no free image of Old Tjikko. I already emailed Leif Kullman and he simply directed me to a website where I could purchase the image. All the photos of norway spruce are large, towering trees, which would be misleading for this article. The spruce in question is a very small, almost bush-sized tree, and there are no depictions of a norway spruce at this size (that I can find). If you know of any, feel free to add it, otherwise, I'm not sure it would do this article any justice. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1b) If you can show me a GA without headings I will look at this.

2b) About the fact that Norway Spruce is a newcommer in Sweden, should be documented by a peer reviewed article. If this discovery is so ground breaking why is nobody writting a paper? The background should be covered also

3) It sounds like this is something unique, but from what I understand this is a common in nature and should read like that.

6) To buy the image might not be necessary and this point will not stop the article from being GA.

--Stone (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1b. Ok, ok, I give up. I have added section headings.

2b. I have no idea why nobody is writing a paper. I wish someone would! But I have been searching and have found nothing, only news sources.

3. I have attempted to address this, let me know what you think.

6. I have added an image, since it would probably be a good idea just to know what it looks like anyway, even if it is not the actual tree.

I have made some major modifications to the article, and as always, it is a work in progess. I will keep improving the article but let me know what you think so far. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give up is always bad, if you have a good article without sections I would agree to change it back, but the sections look good in my eyes and the structure is making easier to read! If there is no journal paper that we have to life with what we have. The image will be replaced by a real picture of the tree sooner or later!

I like the article, good work! Thanks!

Passed GAN --Stone (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]