User talk:Jessie willis/sandbox

1. The whole article had a nice flow. It stayed on topic and was very detailed in its history, descriptions, and used a lot of sources. There are some old dates in the sources but it is mostly historical and unchanging. There are several sources from 2018, so the article is being kept up. I would like to of seen more size reference pictures. For example, a person climbing up the side or a car parked next to it so people can get a true since of awe.

2. Much of the article is neutral in tone. It discusses tree cuttings but does not takes sides, just gives the facts. It does not seem to be any viewpoint beyond natural history in this article. Brief descriptions of conflicts and protecting land, but no taking sides.

3. The links I selected did open and the information seemed relevant. Acouple sites contained info but did not have references itself and seemed made by the public and/or a website to buy saplings with info about the trees you were buying. (Redwood World in UK)

4. It is part of 2 wikiprojects. There is a history of discussions. The most current was to move the article because of a new article of an extinct species in that family. These conversations remind me of several conversations of naming problems we dicussed in class. About monotypic families changing after new species are discovered. In this case, however, it was a extinct species.

Jessie willis (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)