Talk:Webster Sycamore/Archive 1

Failed GA should be inactionable
I'm sorry, but this is a joke.

Did the reviewer even know what they were doing? This GA should have never been failed and an additional reviewer should have replaced the old one. His/her actions should be inactionable, providing poor excuses to fail this article along with harsh comments about this being poorly researched and poorly cited. Looking at the sources, they are all reliable and the reviewer clearly cannot distinguish a source that is either reliable or unreliable. And really, failing it because it doesn't provide many illustrations? Right. This review is flawed and should be disregarded immediately. If not, I will take this to the GA talk page. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Burklemore1, I am in full concurrence with you. The reviewer merely stated a list of grievances with the article, while completely ignoring Good Article criteria, and then shut the article down before I had an opportunity to respond. I have posted a note on the GAN talk page, and it was suggested that I renominate this article for Good Article review. In my ten years contributing to Wikipedia, I've never experienced a review such as this. -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * West Virginian, I cannot view this as a failed nomination, but rather a review initiated by someone who clearly does not have a grasp of the GA criteria. Looking at the comments, most are completely invalid and go against the criteria. Since you have promoted 50 articles to GA, along with many others to FA and FL, I believe you should not worry about this at all and disregard the old review. Keep doing at what you love doing, you haven't done anything at all, more on the lines of improving articles related to West Virginia. I would review the article, but I am not very familiar with reviewing; however, I can say you have done a really good job with it. If this user reviews another article, I will keep my eye on the comments and see if they state the same comments. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Burklemore1, thank you for your kind words, support, and acknowledgement of the review malpractice that has occurred here. West Virginia is an often overlooked and underrated U.S. state, so that is why I've dedicated the majority of my Wikipedia contributions to topics related to the state. I will heed your advice and will continue to go about my business as usual. Thank you for cheering me up post-review! -- West Virginian  (talk)  15:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome West Virginian. I can somewhat relate, since the ant section (that I mainly work on) is also overlooked and forgotten, so I decided to improve the area and so far it is going well. I guess other U.S. states such as California and such attract the most attention, while other states such as West Virginia are neglected, despite the interesting history that is involved. It is good that editors such as yourself do focus on such topics, it is what makes Wikipedia great. Furthermore, I am glad my comments have made you feel better, hopefully one day the West Virginia article itself gets promoted in the future too. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Webster Sycamore
, Webster Sycamore is currently nominated at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to receive a copyedit. I've reverted your edits to the Good Article status version until the GOCE has completed their requested copyedit. -- West Virginian   (talk)  19:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , following the GOCE copyedit, I would like to work with you line by line to resolve your issues with the article. I will review your edits that you made and will work to resolve any issues you have with and toward the article in its present form. -- West Virginian   (talk)  19:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have this discussion here on my talk page. I'll move it to the article's talk page.Chhe (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have requested a GOCE and that was precisely what I was doing to the article when you reverted my edits. GOCE is for getting help to fix up an article. That is what I was doing. The edits I made were the edits I said you should make during the good article nomination, but that for whatever reason you chose not to make. Multiple people can work on an article at one time (with multiple copy-editors), and there isn't a need for everyone to stop editing to wait for one other person who is making edits. I have added myself as a copy-editor, and I will provide a little help to fix this article. I have added back the first copy-edit that I made that you reverted. If you disagree with this change discuss it with me on this article's talk page. Else I will assume you agree with this change and proceed with the other changes.Chhe (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , as a Guild of Copy Editors coordinator I can say with certainty that you seem to misunderstand what we do: copyedit articles so they comply with the Manual of Style and, in the case of GANs and FACs, ensure that they meet the relative prose criteria (which is not as high for GANs than it is for FACs). I don't know how much GA reviewing you've done, but this page meets the GA criteria and edit-warring by a GA reviewer who has been overruled seems inappropriate. and GOCE copyeditor  have extensive experience bringing articles to GA and FA. All the best,  Mini  apolis  16:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've removed some of the content that you had earlier taken issue with, including the quote from Curt Tonkin, the 1960s estimate for the tree's age, and the information contending that sycamores have the largest drunks, and can live for up to 500 years. While not named specifically in the text as "the Webster Sycamore," the sycamore discussed and pictured in Trees, Stars and Birds: A Book of Outdoor Science (1920) is indeed the Webster Sycamore. No other sycamore of that size was ever recorded in West Virginia, let alone in Webster Springs. I can place a footnote caveating this information; but it is undeniable that it is the same tree, although I do understand your concern. I have consulted with on my talk page asking her to take another look at my most recent edits to the article. I hope these most recent satisfy most' of your concerns, as it has been my intention to work with you throughout this process. --  West Virginian   (talk)  19:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Is File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1920.jpg really the Webster Sycamore?


has added this particular image claiming that it is a picture of the Webster Sycamore. Upon first glance I thought West Virginian was likely right concerning this image, but I thought it was a violation of WP:NOR, because the source being cited,, didn't say explicitly that this was the Webster Sycamore. Instead the source said "Sycamore tree growing near Webster Spring, West Virginia. The trunk is 9 feet in diameter about 50 feet high to the fork. The sycamore is one of the largest of our Eastern trees.". The source doesn't say anything more than this though. West Virginian was speculating that this was the same tree because it was big, and was from Webster Springs. I didn't think this reasoning was solid though because Webster Springs back in the 1920s was full of large American Sycamores prior to the lumber industry stripping big trees from the area in the early 1950s. But then I recently noticed another problem, and I am now convinced this can't be the same tree. If you compare the image File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1920.jpg to File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1955.jpg you will see that the 1955 image (which is no doubt an image of the Webster Sycamore) leans to the left considerably. However, the recently added image File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1920.jpg doesn't lean to the left at all, in fact its very vertical with perhaps a slight leaning in the opposite direction. Here is a link to a modern day image of the Webster Sycamore where you can see the Webster Sycamore leaning to the left too. Also, from the images it doesn't look like the image could have been taken from a different direction considering that there is a big hill directly behind the Webster Sycamore with lots of trees to obstruct the view. I think this is likely another big American Sycamore in the area that was probably removed when the lumber industry came in. I don't think such an old deeply rooted tree could shift directions like this. I removed the image for those reasons, but was reverted by West Virginian so I am opening the question up for discussion.Chhe (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about all the rest, but I'd just like to point out that it appears that there is a blemish on the lower part of the trunk that is in the same location in each photo. Also, the second image appears to have been taken from some height, a height greater than the vantage point of the photographer who took the first photo, either from another tree or from the hill behind the tree. If it was taken from a hill, perhaps it was taken from the opposite side of the tree from the first image. Corinne (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not seeing the blemish in File:Webster_Sycamore_Webster_Springs_WV_1920.jpg. Maybe I need to squint.Chhe (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a black area within a dark gray area. Corinne (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, does it look like is engaging in disruptive editing to anyone else?  Mini  apolis  23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Trees will lean over a 35-year period.  Mini  apolis  23:17, 11 October 2015
 * Yes, but a tree this big would cause serious uplift in the soil if it were to lean this much. The soil seems quite flat in . Also, one would expect the tree to keep going in the same direction and in the photo added its leaning slightly to the right. More likely that it just grew in this direction from a young age.Chhe (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , it most certainly does seem as if is engaging in disruptive editing. Chhe, this is the same tree, and it seems a bit silly and unproductive to belabor this issue. I acquiesced to the remainder of your suggested edits and have made them to the article. As I told you, had there been another sycamore of this size in Webster Springs, there would be records of it. No other sycamore of this size was ever recorded or documented in this community. You'll also notice that the fork in the upper branches begin at right about the same place. --  West Virginian   (talk)  19:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's been quiet here today, but if Chhe returns with more assumptions of bad faith it may be time for the dispute resolution noticeboard. Hopefully it won't come to that. All the best,  Mini  apolis  00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I fully concur. Hopefully it will not come to that, as I've done everything I can do to alleviate and respond to his concerns. -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , Corinne, and, in the interest of putting this issue to bed, I've moved the 1955 image up to the info box, and I've moved the 1920 image down to the recognition subsection, where I caveat that it is possibly the Webster Sycamore. Please feel free to modify the wording. I'm not opposed to removing the 1920 image altogether at this point. -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've also removed the offending 1920 image from Template:Did you know nominations/Webster Sycamore. -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To me, the 1920 picture looks like it is leaning away from the camera, like it is taken from the right side of the 1955 photo. If so, and I'm definitely speculating, then the 1920 photo would look like the tree was completely vertical with no lean.  Just one editor's opinion. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I most certainly agree with you! It's a shame I was not able to include the 1920 image in the DYK on account of this debate. Thank you for weighing in!-- West Virginian   (talk)  17:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. The 1955 picture is a much better and clearer picture, in my opinion, for DYK, so it works. :) -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)