GA Review edit
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Initial comments edit
This is certainly quite a readable article and it is well referenced in places. However, it has been submitted by an editor who does not appear to have done any work on it and it contains various {citation needed} and {clarification needed} tags . Those I've looked at, dating back to May 2010, October 2007, May 2010 and September 2009, respectively. There are also significant sections that are under-referenced and paragraphs that are devoid of references.
Whilst the information that is present is good, but not always WP:Verifiable, there are things that I would have expected to see in the article that are not there. I would have expected information on colonisation, whereby various trees migrate into "virgin land" and how the tree species changes over time, "tree line"s on hills and mountains, etc. There is nothing about "farming" of trees - my term - and ancient processes such as coppicing, pollarding, plantations; and nothing about the deliberate selection of trees and their planting, such as tree-lined avenues in towns, avenues of trees in stately home, parks and arboretums.
As this article is not been nominated by a regular contributor to the article, I'm Quick failing it. The article can be resubmitted anytime to WP:GAN, but I would hope that some if not all of these points would be consider and addressed. The article is probably correctly graded as B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)