This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sequoia sempervirens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 730 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Sequoia sempervirens was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 17, 2005 Good article nominee Listed October 25, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This   level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California High‑importance 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 articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Brxiao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

I notice there's some inconsistency in spelling in this article: some uses of English spelling ("metre") and American spelling ("naturalized"). Per WP:ENGVAR, I don't think this species qualifies as having a "strong national tie", because it is cultivated worldwide. So, following the guideline, I went back to the first non-stub version of this article on April 27, 2002, by ClaudeMuncey. That version used "meter", and ClaudeMuncey is from California, so I believe this article should use American spelling. I'll mark it as such and clean up uses of English spelling.

Note that MOS:UNITS directs us to use metric units first (again, because of a lack of a strong national tie). I won't change the order. This was also inconsistent, so I changed them all to metric first.

Other opinions welcome, of course. — hike395 ( talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply

American English is definitely the way to go for an article about a tree that is endemic to the United States and exists elsewhere only in isolated plantings, even if those plantings go back 150 years or more. 137.83.219.59 ( talk) 22:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Today I added 2 IMAGES to the REPRODUCTION section of this page. I am new to working on this particular page, but have a lot of field experience and PHOTOS of Coast Redwoods. I believe that good images are vital not only for their "informative" content but also for helping a text-dense page be more inviting to readers/viewers. I recently added a lot of informative images (and vastly improved the text content) on the plant page I know most about: Torreya taxifolia. So if you are curious about what I do on wikipedia, check it out. In 2021, I also coauthored and continue to update the Assisted migration of forests in North America page. Offsite, you can see an annotated list of a 9-part COAST REDWOOD video series I published on youtube, featuring field experience in California and at horticultural plantings in Portland and Seattle areas: https://thegreatstory.org/climate-trees-legacy.html#redwood Given the current events in Pacific NW of escalating interest in helping Coast Redwood (and Giant Sequoia) move poleward to keep pace with climate change, I hope wikipedians can work productively together to return this vital page to "Good" status. Note: I am a retired science writer (4 books); see my wikipedia user statement. Cbarlow ( talk) 11:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Addbug, Jessekolodny ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jessekolodny ( talk) 02:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

As shown in the header and the archived talk page this was previously a WP:Good article, but was removed in 2007 due to a lack of inline citations. I suspect that is not the only issue keeping the article from getting back to GA status and I would like to hear from other interested editors what they see as the parts of the article that need to be moved to other pages, deleted entirely, or are missing to get this back to being a Good Article. This is one of the most beloved and famous of all the plant species, it is a shame it is not better quality.

Previously there was a lot of discussion about the name of the page. A gap I see is the lack of a subsection under "Taxonomy" that would discuss the common names somewhat in depth including confusion with the giant sequoia for anyone wondering why this is.

There are also still a lot of paragraphs that lack citations even though we have 78 references. E.g. the (to paraphrase) "It grew in LA during the ice age" claim under distribution. 🌿MtBotany ( talk) 00:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply