Talk:Tree/GA3

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am going to review this article, which is nice and well-written on the whole. I have suggested changes, and also pointed out areas where more information may be added. My comments after full reading:
 * The duplicate links that need to be eliminated: photosynthetic, woody, papaya, banana, bamboo, lumber and secondary growth (see Definition), bark (Parts and function#Trunk), pine (Parts and function#Reproduction); tree ferns, forests and Ginkgophyta(Evolutionary history); forest once again (in Uses)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The links that can be added: subarctic (first para), adventitious roots and order(last para) (see Overview); Daintree rainforest, podocarp and broadleaf forest, biome, Eastern Australia temperate forest and Taiga (Distribution); phosphorus, carbohydrate, pathogens, heavy metals, ammonia, radioactive, subterranean (all these are in "Roots"), cork cambium (Trunk), axil (Buds and growth), chlorophyll, petiole (Leaves), pollinated (pollination) (see Reproduction); orchard, nectar (Uses#Food), composite materials and plastics(Uses#Timber), aspirin (Uses#Bark); Greek and Iroquois Confederacy (Mythology)
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * with smaller plants being classified as shrubs Can you give the height of a plant so that it can be classified as a shrub?
 * Dealt with as part of next item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * however the minimum height which defines a tree varies widely, from 10 m to 0.5 m Convert templates are needed here. Should 0.5 m come before 10 m?
 * Done, and rearranged; this (wide) range loosely sets the min for a tree as well as the max for a shrub. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In Overview, you talk of gymnosperms. You should give a few features of gymnosperms here.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Tree-like plants include some palms which are not trees but herbaceous monocots; these do not undergo secondary growth and never produce wood and hence do not meet the definition of tree used in this article. I think you are referring to the first definition in "Definition", but since three types of definitions are given, the reader may not be sure which one you are using in your article. You need to state a bit about this definition in this line.
 * Cut most of this; we shouldn't be repeating the definition arguments in every section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * forest is the more-or-less stable climatic climax community at the end of a plant succession. It would be better to add a bit of explanation about climatic climax community. I could not understand what you meant by "at the end of a plant succession".
 * Added a brief explanation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions for "Distribution":

 * In the second and fourth paragraphs, you talk about coniferous forests in cool temperate regions, though of different hemispheres. I don't see why you can not merge these two parts.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's good that you add examples of forests of each kind, such as Taiga. I think you can add one example of tropical forests (is the Amazon rainforest one?) If you happen to mention a name, try to link it.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eastern Australia temperate forest --> Eastern Australian temperate forest
 * The form without the -n is the one that Australian botanists use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may add an image of any forest you mention by name (why not one of Daintree rainforest?)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A few suggestions for "Parts and function":
A basic draw showing most important or generic parts of a tree should be great. A brief introduction to this section is required as well. --GengisKanhg (my talk) 17:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, in their respective sections, you should add the "Main article" template (as has been done in Leaves)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * reproduction defense add a comma in between.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Once you use taproot as a single word, later you say "tap root". You need to be consistent here.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You should mention a basic fact - about the radicle, the part of the embryo which acts as the origin of the real root, in the very beginning of the section "Roots".
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An instances of grammatical mistake.
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of Angiosperms and Gymnosperms These terms need not be capitalized. (Look out for other similar instances in the following portion of the article)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A few more instances were still there; I have corrected those. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 11:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of the trunk is to raise the leaves above the ground in order to overtop other plants and shading them out Explain a bit why they need to shade out other plants.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In Leaves, you could add a bit about the peculiar leaves of the cactus. Actually, you should give a few examples of modifications in leaves
 * Added more explanation but thought cacti a bit off-topic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is the first line isolated in "Reproduction"?
 * Merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In Uses:

 * berries of coffee trees, (Coffea arabica) and (Coffea canephora), You don't need brackets here, do you?
 * Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * those of kaffir lime Citrus × hystrix (e.g., Thai food[103]) references are generally added after the bracket.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 *  It is often burned inefficiently on an open fire I think you refer to wood as an unclean fuel. How about adding a word about the pollution caused by it?
 * Perhaps that's off-topic for 'Tree'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In "Timber", construction is too common a word to be linked. Rather link those terms suggested above.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, "tree" has itself been linked in "Tree shaping". A conversion template will help in this section.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one hundred and twenty drugs... Better put it in numbers than in words. (Bark)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be great to link "Latex" and "resin" in "Other Uses".
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

In Mythology:

 * you may add a few examples of trees of significance for the Celts.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gifts are left at the tree periodically and when the individual dies, their spirit lives on in the tree. The existence of the spirit in the tree can not be proved, surely? Perhaps it is believed to be so?
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * one of nine jewels --> one of the nine jewels
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In "Superlative trees", It has been dated by drilling a core sample and counting the annual rings and was considered to be 4,844 years old in 2012 Perhaps now we should speak in terms of 2014?
 * Perhaps it would be better to stay with the source on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Finally, the lead:

 * I would suggest merging the material from the 3rd para with the 1st para. This para contains many general facts.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Trees tend to be long-lived,[1] some reaching several thousand years old. Why don't you add this fact and its citation to the Overview? Of course you'll mention it again in the Lead, but I wish the citation to be eliminated from the Lead.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was slightly different; anyway I have fixed it. (See this edit.) Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The tallest known specimen on Earth is 115.6 m (379 ft)  You can add its name in the Lead.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

A few things about the citations

 * Ref. 4 needs to be rewritten properly
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Page range incomplete in refs. 14 and 68
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * URL needed in ref.32.
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref. 67 is a dead link
 * Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

That's the lot. Awaiting your responses, Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 06:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the careful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quickly eliminating the majority of the issues. I have checked the article once again, no more major issues other than those mentioned here. Meanwhile, if you are interested in taking this article till FAC, I would suggest to make the citation formats consistent. It is an issue raised quite frequently at FAC. For example, at many places the author names go something like either Friis, Ib; Balslev, Henrik; Kongelige, Danske; Videnskabernes, Selskab (ref. 17) or Bellefontaine, R.; Petit, S.; Pain-Orcet, M.; Deleporte, P.; Bertault, J-G (ref. 87). Consistency is needed in the way you write their names. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 11:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Final GA review
After making a few more final edits, the final GA review:
 * Is the article well-written?
 * Properly written with style and clarity..


 * Does the article use adequate and reliable sources, and make frequent citations to them? Does it contain original research?
 * Citations are reliable and sufficient. No instances of any original research..


 * Is the article broad in its coverage, addressing the main aspects but at the same time remaining focused on the main subject?
 * Comprehensive and well at explanation, including examples. Focused.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Entirely descriptive and no instance of bias.


 * Is the article stable?
 * Not a target of edit wars and thus fairly stable.


 * Are the images relevant, having suitable captions? Are they tagged with their copyright status or are properly licensed for non-free content)?
 * Plenty of useful images to go with the text. No issues about unfair use of images.

Thus the article is ready to be promoted for GA status. Congrats to both of you editors for your tireless efforts! Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 03:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comprehensive review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks from me also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)