Talk:King Ludwig Oak/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting this one. CMD (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Location
 * In location, the note of the shift within the spa gardens leaves two possibilities, a moved tree or a moved spa boundaries. This could be clarified, or perhaps if too long the 20th century part could be left to the history section.
 * Clarified.


 * "from the Staatsbad to Züntersbach. The Fürstenhof," this is a series of German words which haven't appeared earlier, so perhaps more explanation/shuffling is due here.
 * Explained and linked.


 * "several villas and the Protestant church were added around 1900", "a Protestant church" is probably better, and a word such as "built" may work better than "added"
 * Copyedited.


 * Description
 * "known as the royal oak", does this "known as" refer to the officially designated name? If so this should be more explicitly stated.
 * Is the tree in the Bad Kissingen district? If so I'd expect to see that in the Location section, along with perhaps a bit more of the expansive location available in the infobox.
 * "The royal oak appears extremely asymmetrical in the lower part of the crown. In the past, the surrounding area served the spa guests as a place to celebrate, play, dance and rest." How does the spa use relate to the asymmetry? It's not entirely clear.
 * "1,500-square-metre (16,000 sq ft) area underneath the foliage". Could a source quote be included for such a claim, even if in German?
 * "If the information in the sources is correct". It this speculation from the source? It would also be preferable to have the sources in question mentioned, and the wording hedged somewhat. The writing all sounds very sure.
 * "Five branches that extend horizontally on one side at a height of about four metres (13 ft) and, like other branches of the crown, are heavily mossed on the top." This sentence reads oddly. It needs a grammar rewrite, and it's odd to say "like other branches" given these are the first ones mentioned.
 * "are the only supported oaks of this size", what is this size category, as all the trees seem different. A threshold may be clearer.
 * The description seems to move between branches, the trunk, and supports frequently, which brings a bit of redundancy. Could the section be reshuffled to group the common topics?
 * "Since the hot summer of 2003, the previously small amount of dead wood, which is regularly cut out, has increased; the oak's declining vitality noticeable". It feels there is a lot in this sentence that could be unpacked and explained more clearly.
 * Is there more information about the inscription plaques? Who installed them, and when?
 * Not clear why a supported crown would cause growth rates to differ from other oaks of the same species. Also, if growth rates are changing, is there variation in soil quality?
 * "is the strongest oak in Germany", what makes an oak strong?


 * History
 * "In 1747, the Fulda Prince Abbot Amand von Buseck founded the spa following the discovery of the medicinal properties of the waters." An example of a sentence with too much assumed knowledge. The spa name should be here, as should a note on what exactly the waters are and what medicinal properties they have/are thought to have.
 * The Egid Verhelst caption should mention it is the earliest pictorial representation.
 * Similarly, could the descriptions of the oak given in the text also be included in the captions?
 * "During the first comprehensive survey in the then Kingdom of Bavaria in the years 1808 to 1853, the oak was registered on the Bad Brückenau—NW CIV 56 original sheet from November 1848 with the field number 284 and the name Königseiche." What sort of survey was this? What is the "Bad Brückenau—NW CIV 56 original sheet"?
 * Expected more information about King Ludwig's campaigns in this section given their earlier mention. The only part I see it is in the Friedrich Stützer quote, and that's posthumous.
 * The topic of supports similarly appears in a quote, and then the text treats support as a given without mentioning when they might have begun.
 * The Recent times subsection also assumes a lot of knowledge, and could perhaps use more dates. Topic-specific terms used in tree restoration could do with a bit more explanation.
 * Were the recent tree care events the first non-support related tree care to occur?
 * There's quite a bit of redundancy between the History and Description sections overall, they could use some refining to better delicate their topics.


 * Other
 * Is there a reason that there is not a specific version of the Bad Kissingen source cited?
 * Commons has tagged a few images with a request for a US-PD tag as well.
 * Given the extensive and comprehensive text, the lead seems quite short!

Overall, there appears to be some comprehensive sourcing especially in History, but the organisation of the text has space to improve and there are a couple of questions the text raises that might be able to be answered. Closing this as the nominator seems to have retired, but I hope someone else can pick it up. CMD (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello and thank you for the review, which I realize has been closed. I have had the article bookmarked for the past year and I will now have the time to work on it. I hope you don't mind me leaving brief notes in response to your points, indicating how I addressed the issues; because it will be hard to keep a mental note of what I have worked on — and this will take me a few weeks to wrap up. I just wanted to check with you first if you will be okay with me using this review page to track my progress. — The Most Comfortable Chair 22:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an objection to making notes here if you feel it will assist with demonstrating improvements in a new GAN. CMD (talk) 03:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)