Template:Did you know nominations/General Grant Grove

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of General Grant Grove's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC).

General Grant Grove[edit]

A tree in the General Grant Grove

5x expanded by Newhousj (talk). Nominated by GabrielF (talk) at 22:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC).

  • Comment: The tree which is listed as the 2nd largest according to your hook is listed as the third largest tree at its article (General Grant (tree)), with a reference that specifically states it was overtaken according to volume (not height) on review in December 2012. Perhaps you should either clarify this at General Grant Grove, or reword your hook to say it is home to the 2nd tallest tree. Freikorp (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Date and 5x expansion checks out. I've started getting into the referencing and checking for plagiarism and close paraphrasing but immediately noted that the "11th largest tree" (the Robert E. Lee (tree)) is not sourced in the article and there are claims in the Creation of Kings Canyon National Park and recent history section that could also use reference citations. It would also be really nice if this article had some WP:MOS work done on it. I understand this was created by a new user, and I went ahead and did some clean up myself, but the WP:CITATION format is pretty messy. While the online sources are, thankfully, not bare urls which would hold back the DYK nom, it would be greatly appreciated if the nominator (or another more experience user) could mentor the article creator on how to format online citations. While that alone would not keep the nom from passing (not having the hook fact cited will), it will make finishing this review go much more smoothly. AgneCheese/Wine 21:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I made a couple of changes to the article. I explicitly cited a National Parks Service publication that lists the sizes of the biggest sequoias.[1] and I added a clarifying footnote about how the measurements are made. I will work on converting the references to harvard-style short footnotes. GabrielF (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the response. It looks much better and checking for close paraphrasing and plagiarisms has been a lot easier. This article is very close to being good to go with just that one unreferenced paragraph in the Creation of Kings Canyon National Park and recent history needing to be dealt with. Reading the Larry Dilsaver Challenge of the Big Trees source cited throughout the article, it looks like Chapter 8 has the info to be cited but I want to be sure that this was the source originally intended by the creator or if there was another source they would like to use. AgneCheese/Wine 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hello, Newhousj (the author) here. Thank you for all your help in the review process! I've added the citations to the Creation of Kings Canyon National Park and recent history section. Take a look and let me know what you think! If there is anything else I need to change, please let me know. Newhousj (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Excellent work. Again I appreciate both your and GabrielF's prompt attention. The article looks great and passes all DYK criteria for date, length and referencing with no signs of close paraphrasing or plagiarism. It's good to go. AgneCheese/Wine 20:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)