Talk:Discovery Tree

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 September 2026 by reviewer Sulfurboy (talk · contribs).

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Addition of tone tag to page

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I really like the way that this article is written, but feel that it has too strong of an authorial voice to an encyclopedic tone.

For example, the sentence "But this natural wonder would soon become a symbol of humanity's destructive impact." is not sourced and is, to me at least, an expression of the authors opinion.

Let me know if you agree with my assessment or think the tone-tag should be removed :) TheExpandingBureaucracy (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

Yesterday, I created an edit making the tone more neutral.

If you would like to change the edit, it's all up to you.

Also, you can check if the tag is valid to be removed.

Thank you! Hanawikis (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, I agree with you that the page had a strong authorial voice, so I just reworded and summarized sentences. Hanawikis (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Hanawikis Thanks for all the work on the page. Sorry I haven't been active for a couple weeks, life has been a little hectic. I think the page is in a pretty good spot now tone wise, your rewording and summaries are great. :) TheExpandingBureaucracy (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure, there were many others working on the tone, too, so it was a team effort! Hanawikis (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Major rewrite and sourcing cleanup

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rewrote the lede to better summarize the Discovery Tree, Dowd's role in publicizing the grove, the 1853 felling and exhibition, and the surviving stump and trunk.
Reworked the discovery section to distinguish Dowd's 1852 account from earlier reported encounters with giant sequoias, including Zenas Leonard and John Bidwell.
Clarified that Dowd was working as a hunter for the Union Water Company when he encountered the North Grove and retained the traditional grizzly-bear account with attribution.
Rewrote the felling section around William H. Hanford's commercial exhibition scheme and added stronger sourcing for the June 27, 1853 felling, use of pump augers, size of the stump, and age of the tree.
Retained the earlier Hutchings account of Lewis proposing an eastern exhibition, but attributed it rather than presenting it as established fact.
Expanded and reorganized the San Francisco exhibition using contemporary coverage from the Daily Alta California and San Joaquin Republican.
Reworked the New York exhibition chronology and retained the New York Herald and Kruska citations.
Corrected the competing P. T. Barnum exhibit: Barnum displayed a coast redwood, not another giant sequoia.
Clarified that sections of the tree were exhibited rather than suggesting that the entire tree was transported to San Francisco and New York.
Retained as much of the existing citation base as possible while adding California State Parks and Calaveras Heritage Council sources for details previously supported by weaker references.
Rewrote the legacy section to separate contemporary criticism, the Yosemite Grant connection, tourist use of the remains, and eventual protection of the grove.
Added Hutchings' contemporary criticism of the felling and placed Muir's later condemnation in context.
Revised the Yosemite Grant material to avoid overstating the Discovery Tree's role; added John Conness's 1864 Senate remarks showing that the Calaveras exhibitions were explicitly cited during the preservation debate.
Clarified that the stump was used as a dance floor, while the bowling alley and bar were built on the fallen trunk.
Added the 1853 Fourth of July cotillion account from Hutchings.
Removed the conflicting 1,120-ring age claim in favor of the better-supported 1,244-year figure.
Clarified the 1931 establishment of Calaveras Big Trees State Park and preservation of the Discovery Tree remains.
Cleaned up several misleading, redundant, or weakly sourced statements throughout while preserving useful older citations and contemporary newspaper sources.

Guywelch2000 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply