Talk:Eagle Tree

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Eagle Tree/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dwarfroe (talk · contribs) 00:13, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dwarfroe, by the way, feel free to respond to points I've raised below before I have completed the other sections of the template. I often save prose for last and only look closely at it after other issues ahve been addressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added sourcing to the Hancock image, reworded the sentence mentioned in 2d., and fixed the formatting for both of the sources on Internet Archive. As for the California Herald, ArchiveGrid states that it is an ofshoot of the NSGW's The Grizzly Bear magazine. Both of the NDGW and NSGW have been in operation for over 100 years and are organizations dedicated to preserving Californian history and heritage. I see no reason for them to not be reliable. For Esotouric, the website's press page compiles positive feedback from some large publications, including the New York Times, National Geographic, and Los Angeles Times, that have reported on them. Spectrum News, in this article, describes Kim Cooper, the writer of the Esotouric article, as a "Los Angeles historian". SFGate (article) described the tours held by the website as "some of the most offbeat and well-researched tours in Los Angeles." - dwarfroe (talk / contr) 03:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, with the LA review of books also calling her a historian, and informing us that she has a degree in art history, I'll say it's good enough for GA, though I don't think it would meet the FA standard. Thanks for the other changes, looking good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to Dwarfroe and any others who've worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. Nothing major. If there are any changes you object to, just let me know. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, issue addressed (Hancock).
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Esotouric is a blog from a tour company; what suggests this is a reliable source? Has it been cited by other reliable sources, for instance? California Herald is a bit of an odd source, as the journal of a sororal organization. Any info available on the editorial or historical process for this article? The way it's currently cited (along with cite #7), it looks like the Internet Archive is the source, not the host, and the Herald is not mentioned. Please rework the citation to be clear on the actual source. I can help with this if you have any technical issues in fixing this issue. Issue addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See question on Henry Hancock map/image below. Issue addressed, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing majorly concerning; hold for manual spot check. However, this passage After the branch fell, the city had a company trim the tree... to be taken to keep the tree alive is very closely paraphrased with two shared phrases, and I recommend reworking it to avoid the similarities with the source; I'd shorten it and summarize further. Nothing found in spot check of 4 sources. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I wasn't able to find anything else noteworthy to add to the article and the given sources don't indicate that there's major missing pieces of the story. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues, pass. No edit warring, mostly stable since creation.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use image, one public domain image from the 19th century, pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Is there a source for the Henry Hancock image that links that map to this tree? There's no mention in the text, so it comes across almost like WP:OR. Pass, issue addressed.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.