Talk:Sequoia sempervirens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sequoia sempervirens article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 years  |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Good article problems
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)
Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History Fall 2024
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lyons10 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Lyons10 (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Seto porcelain clay Formation
@Bubblesorg: Miki 1944 is not acceptable as its outdated and a VERY brief search shows it. This paper on page 16 footnote 2 it specifically calls out that Miki transferred the fossils from Sequoia sempervirens Endl to Sequoia couttisie Heer (sic -S. couttsiae) in 1965. After that transfer we have the change in generic placement of "S". couttsiae to become the type species of Quasisequoia as Q. couttsiae (Heer), L. Kunzmann, 1999. All while the fossils themselves have not been reexamined and restudied since at least 1965 if not since Miki's initial work in the early 1940's. Fossil plants are much more convoluted then fossil animals and you have to be VERY diligent with researching before you add statements to articles.--22:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC) Kevmin § 22:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)