Talk:El Palo Alto/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 08:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing. Some preliminary notes, for the first part of the article:

Mission Santa Clara de Asís should be linked and properly accented.

• Done

"Most evidence suggests that El Palo Alto is an impostor, and not the actual tree" ... "The true El Palo Alto likely became widely known": confusing. If it's an imposter, is the "true El Palo Alto" the still-standing tree currently known as El Palo Alto? Alternatively, if the name "El Palo Alto" only ever referred to the current tree, is it accurate to call it an "imposter" for another tree that was misidentified as being the same tree? It is not the tree that is doing anything false; it is the local tradition that may well be mistaken.

• Reworded by just removing "impostor"—see if that works.

"the tree may have been one further downstream": since there are at least two trees in question, this is somewhat ambiguous. The tree of Portola's camp? The tree in Father Palou's diary? The tree of Font's map?

• It's a bit messy. I think most people assume that the Spanish explorers were referring to the same tree, so I went strictly with the source and said the tree under which Portola camped

"by the 1850s with the establishment of El Camino Real": ?? The road between Mission Santa Clara and Mission San Francisco presumably came into existence sometime around the late 1770s when the two missions were founded. The commemorative route of this road, under the El Camino Real name, was established in 1902 after efforts beginning in 1892. It appears that the intended meaning was that the tree became widely known by the 1850s because of its proximity to a road that was already well-used at the time, but this needs rewording because of the false implication that the 1850s were a significant date in the history of the road itself.

• The source quotes a historian writing in 1969: "I would say the weight of the evidence points to the Palo Alto not having become a notable landmark until the year 1850, or more especially 1852, when travelers on the County Road (El Camino) could begin marking [sic] their journey by it" (parentheses in original). But the book's authors excerpted it quite out of context; perhaps the historian is referring to an actual road that was built around then. The tree is indeed close to today's El Camino Real.
  • I found what the historian is likely writing about, from an SPS (Trees of Palo Alto; I'll look for better sources before adding): "In 1850 the tall tree was again the sighting tree when the surveyors projected the lien for a highway then called the San Francisco–San Jose Road, now named El Camino Real." So, appears to check out, but I don't have a better source for this. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Alright, dug up a source on the road and restored the material. I've kept the past tense "passed", because I've been unable to establish that this road is the exact same path as the modern California State Route 82. Ovinus (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"passed somewhat close to El Palo Alto": why the past tense? The road with that name still runs close to the tree.

• Removed due to above, although I may re-add in the future

"The tree was originally known as the Palos Colorados": When and by whom? Does "palo" really mean tree in this context? (I have only ever seen "El Palo Alto" translated as "the big stick".) And does "colorado" really mean "red"? (My impression was that the literal translation is "colored" although it often has a connotation of the color being red.)

• "When and by whom?" I don't know. The NYT source says They first referred to it as Palos Colorados, which loosely translates to “red trees,” because of the redwood’s red bark, where "they" is the Spanish travelers, but seeing as the tree's history is convoluted I wasn't comfortable saying it was indeed the Spanish explorers themselves. Font's diary doesn't seem to use the term. But I have hedged the translation a bit per the source.

"Leland Stanford—who would co-found Stanford University" see WP:INTOTHEWOULDS.

• Done

"He named his estate ... a stable for training horses": is that what he named it? Or is that what he originally used it for? Also, this is the metonymous use of "stable" to mean a ranch for training horses, not the literal use of "stable" to mean a building for housing the horses that are being trained, right? Because an estate is not a building.

• Indeed. Fixed.

"planned to establish a university in his honor on farm land": why so indirect? They did establish the university. Also, "farm land" (where one produces crops or raises animals for food) or land for training horses? They are not the same thing.

• Left over from previous rewording.

"the nearby village": have we heard about the existence of a nearby village anywhere earlier in the article?

• Replaced article

"centuries ago": maybe "centuries earlier"? The time at which the artist drew the seal is not the present day. Also, I imagine that not everyone reads Latin, so you might want to explain the meaning of "semper virens" and its connection to the scientific name of the tree. It might also make sense to mention that the motto has since been replaced, and that several depictions of the tree have been used; the official version appears to be the one at https://identity.stanford.edu/visual-identity/stanford-logos/university-seal/ The source you used for this says that the first artist was Arthur Bridgman Clark; that might also be worth mentioning.

• That's correct. I suppose the first one is PD so I could put it in. Fixed

"somewhere between 1875 and 1882": a little colloquial in wording. "Somewhere" is not really the best word for a time range, and I think just "between 1875 and 1882" would work as well. But this date is contradicted by the next paragraph's estimate of 1885, so maybe it shouldn't be stated so definitively.

• Indeed. I found the tree's mention in the December 1882 article way after consulting the book sources, but it refutes the 1885 guess. But most sources which use a precise date (most just say "mid-1880s", which isn't even clear) mention 1885, so I wasn't sure how to balance it. Does "some time" address the informality concerns?

"It is designated California Historical Landmark No. 2": the photos I can find online for the landmark plaque show it as being for "Portola Journey's End", not for the tree itself. And the official state site for the landmark [1] has the same title, and lists it as being in Menlo Park, not Palo Alto (although the tree itself is certainly in Palo Alto). (Same goes for the coverage of this material in the "Legacy" section.)

• You are ... apparently correct. This seems to be a widespread error but I should have caught it. Fixed.

"Peirce planted": Pierce.

• Peirce, actually; fixed the first instance

Now El Palo Alto Park: maybe say how large the park is and what its amenities are (I think a footpath and footbridge over the creek).

• Done, although I don't immediately have a source for the bridge. (How did you know?)
  • I have lived in Palo Alto at several points in my life and several addresses, and still visit frequently, but neglected to stop by the tree when I was last there, a couple days ago. Instead, the answer is: Google image search for the park's name. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"In 1876 the plot containing El Palo Alto was purchased by Leland Stanford": Now I am wondering: what was the provenance of the plot? Who owned it before the Stanfords? Shouldn't we say something here about the history of Rancho San Francisquito?

• I can't believe that's an article. Will work on it; there is some useful information regarding the tree.
  • You can't believe that one of the original Spanish ranchos would be notable, or you can't believe that the article is in sad shape? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Hahaha. No, I just can't believe someone's already made an article on it. Anyway, at the library there's a book which contains a reasonable amount of history about the land, I think, I just didn't think to write it all down. And [2] gives an example of "Palo Alto" being used in early surveying documents. Ovinus (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
      • I've dug up some (mostly offline) sources on the matter and substantially expanded the section. It proved helpful in clarifying exactly who owned the land around the tree, a matter complicated by its standing right at the corner between three Mexican land grants. I also found and incorporated some more sources on the "Palo Alto" moniker. I mostly clarified the ownership of the land around the tree: The NSGW had the immediate area from 1922 until 1974, when they disbanded, and the city negotiated a new lease in 1978 (alas I could only find a newspaper article saying they sent the lease to SP, not that it was signed, so the article reflects that). The area constituting the park next to it was given by Thomas Sawyer to the city in 1907. (Sawyer essentially founded Palo Alto back in the 1880s/90s, but I'm assuming he withheld that particular piece of land. I think that detail is a bit irrelevant.) All that said, I was unable to unearth land transfers between the Stanfords and SP. It may have been just been owned by Southern Pacific till the Native Sons; it, Sawyer and the Stanfords were all on excellent terms with each other, so I imagine coordinating construction wouldn't have been noisome. Ovinus (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
        • Good work. So much of the land history in earlier versions was wrong. The Stanfords appear to have owned neither the land with the tree on it (Southern Pacific) nor the land surrounding it that became El Palo Alto Park (Hopkins), and the land of their initial purchase wasn't even in the same rancho. Interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
          • Yup; a lot of individual sources are a bit sloppy, unfortunately. Perhaps the most disappointing is the NYT piece which started my journey to improve the article (for example, Leland Stanford ... purchased the land where the tree stood in 1876 for his family home and his Palo Alto stock farm). Its remaining uses seem either sufficiently modern or backed up by other sources, so that's good. Ovinus (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The article talks about construction aimed at saving the tree being directed by Jane Stanford in 1904 and by Southern Pacific in 1909. Does that suggest that there was a transfer of land ownership between those dates? If not when did Southern Pacific come to take over the land?

• I don't know. I couldn't find much on newspapers.com so I would probably have to look through land transfer papers for something definite.
  • I now think it likely that the railroad owned the land from sometime around the date they put in the railroad line, which is what your current text suggests. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I've requested SP records of their lease on El Palo Alto from the Stanford library, so (probably post-review) I'll hopefully get a definite answer. But yeah, from what I can tell SP has owned the tree since the 1860s and just leased it out. Ovinus (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Native Sons of the Golden West, an organization dedicated to the preservation of California landmarks, took stewardship of the tree in 1920.[44] The city leased the surrounding land from Southern Pacific": In contrast, [3] this official source claims that the Sons of the Golden West came to own the land, and deeded it to the City of Palo Alto in the 1960s.

• From what I can tell, the land immediately around the tree was leased to NSGW from 1922 until 1974. The group went defunct and SP no longer had someone to lease it to. [4] confusingly says "City officials thought the city was in the old lease, but it wasn't". But "In the 1960s, the Native Sons of the Golden West deeded land surrounding El Palo Alto to the City of Palo Alto" doesn't make sense to me. I'll dig around. Ovinus (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this one up! I'll be busy until ~January 2, so I'll come back to the review then. Should have time to work on it. Ovinus (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"15 miles to the southeast", "about a half-mile south", "about 8,000 acres", "25-foot-high", "10 feet above the tree": use {{convert}} per MOS:CONVERSIONS. I think that's more or less it for WP:GACR #1.

Conversions done. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Earwig found no significant copying (it showed 30% similarity to http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/The-El-Palo-Alto-Redwood-Heritage-Tree-1.pdf but none of the hits looked like inappropriately copied text). All text is footnoted (except for the summary of later material in the lead).

Reference formatting:

• Most of the article uses mdy date formatting (e.g. "between November 6 and 11, 1769"), the usual choice for US-based topics, as do some of the references ("Dockter, Dave (September 18, 1999)") but many other references use dmy formatting ("Robbins, Jim (26 June 2021)"). Pick one and be consistent. The {{use mdy dates}} template may help.
• Reference 4 "Final Calendar of Legislative Business" has some visible brackets

  Interesting. The pipe trick doesn't work in that field.

• Reference 20 Dunscomb please add |hdl=2027/mdp.39015006075587
• "with an increment boring": why does this need the article "an"?
• Reference 46 "San Jose Mercury-Herald": our article The Mercury News uses a hyphen, not a space, in this version of the newspaper's name.
• The only reference that appears at all dubious in reliability is the siliconvalley.com one — who or what is siliconvalley.com? But it's actually a story in one of the main local newspapers, The Mercury News: [5]

  All done, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Offline and paywalled sources taken AGF. Checking the rest:

• [5] "About Coast Redwoods" is used to source the tallest redwood, Hyperion, but does not actually mention that tree.

  The neighboring NYT source: "As a result, the National Park Service has closed off access to Hyperion, which, at 379.1 feet tall, is the world’s tallest living tree." Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [6] Dockter p1: that source states the age as 1059 years in September 1999. So the 1082 age appears correct, now. The body text correctly formats this using {{age|940}} but the lead hardcodes the number 1082, and probably should be replaced by the same {{age|940}} template.

  Done. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [7] ("Caltrain plan") sources the fact that the tree is near the San Francisquito Creek, but is an unlikely source for that fact, which should be easily found in much better sources, and it does not source that the creek "provided it the necessary water to survive". In the other use of footnote 7, it does source the electrification project and trestle replacement, but fails to source "which would eliminate the impact of smoke". Incidentally, we have an article on the electrification project, which maybe should be linked here: Caltrain Modernization Program.

  The NYT article: "Mr. Passmore believes that a coast redwood seed may have been swept down from the mountains by San Francisquito Creek, took purchase and was nourished over the centuries by the creek waters." Regarding its usage in the first instance, I couldn't immediately find a source that also mentions that it is bordering Menlo Park in particular. Regarding the second usage: done, citing the NYT piece. Link added. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [9] Ohlone-Portola heritage: Our article states "...Ohlone natives who indicated another bay was approaching, the expedition continued north and on November 1 were greeted with the expanse of the San Francisco Bay." However, this story that the Ohlone knew about both bays, communicated their existence to Portola, and that the actual sighting of the SF Bay was made later by Portola acting on what they told him, is contradicted by the source. It states instead that the Ohlone took Portola up to a ridge and showed him the bay. The source says nothing about the final sentence of this paragraph, "They traveled southwest and arrived at San Francisquito Creek on November 6, 1769, where they camped until November 11".

  Fixed. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [11] Font's diary sources the measurement of the tree but not the part about concluding the creek flow to be unreliable and siting the mission elsewhere.

  It's in Winslow and Bowling, but I'm afraid I don't have either on me to quote. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

  Winslow, p.15 : "Because the creek often dried up in summer, Font and De Anza rejected Palou's mission site choice as flawed. Instead they founded the Mission de Santa Clara de Asis, 15 miles to the southeast on January 12, 1777." Ovinus (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [15] "A landmark gone": listing as [15][14] should be swapped to [14][15]. This sources the claim that another redwood on the creek fell in 1911 (I am assuming the other source is for the other date) but not the claim that this fallen tree was ever a candidate for being Portola's tree.

  Gullard & Lund indicate, as the two candidates, a redwood around there (near Hale and Forest Street, 37.453, -122.1509) that fell in 1911 (and give the 1852 date of another redwood falling near Pope Street), so unless there is a third redwood the chance of confusion is very low. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [16] Vischer ok
• [18] "A bit of history" ok
• [20] Dunscomb ok
• [21] sources use in Southern Pacific advertising and the existence of a wall built by SP, but not its 1909 construction date or dimensions

  Removed the dimensions, because it came from the NYT article and it incorrectly says the current wall was the one directed by Jane Stanford. For the date, the third citation in that sentence ([6]) says "Southern Pacific Company will build concrete embankment around base" and "material has arrived and work will begin in short time", which I think is sufficient for "around 1909". Ovinus (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [26] Stanford seal ok
• [27] Viva ok
• [28] Motto controversy ok
• [29] "Governor Stanford on Horseflesh" is a good source for the 1882 upper bound on the date the second trunk fell, but that leaves the 1875 lower bound unsourced. Why do we have the MOS:LABEL "reportedly" on the claim that the rings were counted, when this source clearly states that they were?

  Removed, since it's quite clear. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [31] Miller: this appears to be the missing source for the 1875 lower bound. The page number of the linked compilation is 345, not 344, but it is actually page 1 of vol. 48, no. 10, July 1947.

  Fixed. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [32] Lightheart sources Leland Stanford ordering reinforcement for the tree but not the 1888 date.

  Replaced with "after the first trunk fell". I can't find anything much more precise, sadly. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

• [33] "'Waters, Spare the Tree!'" ok
• [34] "Palo Alto Tree To Be Protected" ok
• [35] Marooned: contradicts the claims that the tree climber was a student and that he became stranded at nighttime (it says he was a university employee, that he became stranded around 5pm, and that he was not rescued until hours later by which time it would have been night). Does not source the claim that this was the last flag-planting event.

  Last flag-planting event is found in Gullard & Lund. ("The last known climber was Vincent Levesque who went up on the eve of Admissions Day, 1909.") The NYT says that a report by the city of Palo Alto indicates that it was a student, and most sources say so. What's confusing is that the name found in Gullard & Lund is different from what the newspaper gives ("Vincent De Lac"). Otherwise I would trust the newspaper more due to its contemporaneity. Added a parenthetical, but not sure how to resolve the contradiction more elegantly. Ovinus (talk) 09:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Stopping for now, more later. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

More source analysis, numbering now based on updated version of article:

• [39] "Railroad work": ok as source for 1902 track-doubling only

  Gullard & Lund has the 70 trains/day figure. Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• [40] "Saving El Palo Alto" ok
• [41] Peirce ok
• [42] "Big tree perishing, holdovers retrench" ok
• [43] "Botany professor believes Palo Alto tree will die soon" ok for planting replacement trees and for lawn-mower incident for one of them (also mentioned in 42), dubious for "six remain" in present tense (source is from too long ago to source modern existence)
• [44] "El Palo Alto tree survives multiple hazards": again, problematic for present existence of six replacement trees. Ok for most of later citation in "Recovery" section although it is not specific as to the number of arborists who examined the tree (but that's in the other source for that). Note that source [42] locates the trees in the oval, in front of Jordan Hall (recently renamed). Google Street View from the front of Jordan Hall sees no redwoods. I am not convinced any of these trees are still there.

  2005 source (best I can immediately find) and 2022 photographic evidence added ;) Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Ok, I'm convinced. Convenient use of a time machine to go back to a date with better weather to take the photo. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I should note that the author seems to have made an off-by-one error ("A group of five, the largest with a 15-foot girth"). But in the top-most picture of that article (added after the text was written), you can see the base of a neglected specimen peeking out from the left of the leftmost tree. Ovinus (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• [45] NSGW ok
• [46] "City Park Development Begins" and [47] "Plans made to preserve famous Palo Alto tree": ok for both uses. Note that the footnote numbers are out of order in the second use.

  Fixed

• [50] "Many Attend Tree Service" ok
• [52] Farmer p540: the actual page number within this article that sources the plaque dedication ceremony is 539

  Fixed

• [54] "Lack of water, train smoke slowly killing historic Palo Alto redwood tree" ok
• [55] Farmer p542: the actual page number within this article that sources the varying tree height over the years is 541. The second use of this footnote, for obscuration by Eucalyptuses, is ok for p542.

  Fixed

• [56] "El Palo Alto going to have a built-in coastal fog system" supports watering system installation but not "dubbed the "Fool the Redwood Plan" by a caretaker"

  Found in NYT source

• [57] "City's historic redwood craves care", [58] "Built-in shower bathes old tree": first source is ok for the irrigation system needing repair. The second is the one that supposedly sources "Water was brought by Jeep twice a month and pumped for two hours up the line", but it does not actually say that the Jeep brought water, only that it brought a pump. It could as well have been the case that the Jeep-mounted pump used creek water. There is a photo but it's unclear to me what equipment it depicts.

  Done

• [59] "El Palo Alto suffering from drought, smog": ok
• [60] "Palo Alto namesake tree found healthy": ok
• [61] "More care needed for El Palo Alto": ok
• [62] Dockter p4: ok for quote but does not source "with a 90-inch (230 cm) diameter and crown spread of 40 feet (12 m), and enjoys much greater health than it did a century ago". The measurements are sourced by the other Dockter footnote, to p1. The "much greater health" part is better sourced to p6.

  Fixed

• [64] Krieger ok
• [65] Farmer p544 sources the band mascot but not the two seals (those are on p.543, so the easy fix is to use a page range rather than a single page)

  Good idea, done

• [66] HMDB: ok
• [68] Dungan ok
• [69] "El Palo Alto seeds sent to Florida" ok

On to the other GA criteria next... —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Remaining GA criteria

• 1, well-written: Already covered. Y
• 2, properly sourced, without original research: Already covered. Y
• 3, broad in its coverage, without excessive detail: Y
• 4, neutral: Y
• 5, not subject to edit wars or disputes: Y

That leaves only criterion 6, on the relevance, captioning, and licensing of the images.

• Lead image: A reasonable choice. The train in File:El Palo Alto with Caltrain 2022.jpg would add interest compared to the bare foreground of the existing choice, but that one is marred by all the wires and by the growth of the other nearby redwoods making it harder to tell which one is El Palo Alto.

  Yeah, I was considering using an older photo since that's when the tree was most important, but I think this 2004 photo is a good one for the reasons you describe. (Maybe—god forbid—if the tree dies, we can switch to an image of the tree in its prime, as we do for people.)

• Map of the peninsula, with Sweeney Ridge and El Palo Alto marked: helpful. Caption could use a citation as the details of the route that it describes are not included or cited in the main article text.

  Done.

• Vischer: essential to include this one. Caption should link Edward Vischer.

  Done.

• Survey of Rancho de las Pulgas: a little confusing as this is not one of the ranchos mentioned in the article text. Maybe a little more context in the caption, like "(north of San Francisquito Creek)" might help connect it better.

  It is mentioned in the text, but I've added clarification

• Maybe we could include an image of the 1908 seal, as it's old enough to be out of copyright?

  Yeah, I couldn't find a good image of it. The b-and-w one on their website is a pitiful 189x183. If I find an authentic, reasonably high-quality image I'll add it. I could include the Palo Alto seal, though, since California government stuff is fortunately PD. Thoughts? Ovinus (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Possible. I don't really care for the drop-shadow effect on the PA seal but I guess that's not very relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• Train passes: a good illustration of the threat to the tree, despite or maybe because of the poor reproduction. This is the only one with any possibility of a copyright issue but I think it's ok.

  I previously made a quick check for copyright renewals of the newspaper in question ([7]) and its successors, and couldn't find anything.

• "The six redwoods planted by Peirce in 1915": well, really, the surviving six out of the seven he planted.

  Done

• Gallery + with Caltrain: if it's not going to be a lead image, I'm not sure I see the reason for the Caltrain image to be standalone rather than part of the gallery or included at all. The gallery should probably actually be formatted as a gallery (see Template:Gallery) rather than as a multiple image, so that it behaves better on very narrow screens. Alternatively, the 1904 and 1918 images could be used as a smaller right-aligned multiple image to illustrate the "One trunk falls" section. Why is the Watkins image labeled "c. 1870–80" when the National Gallery of Art clearly labels it as 1870? Is this the first known photograph of the tree (Vischer photographed his sketches, not his subjects)? If so, maybe we should note that, and link to its photographer, Carleton Watkins. Why are the images out of chronological order? Also, I'm not convinced the 1911 image adds much value; we should only use images that help inform readers, not make galleries of all historical images that we might have.

—David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• I moved the 1904/1918 images up and removed the 1911 image. Regarding the 1870 date: I've seen various sources that claimed 1875 as the date of that photo (you can see that Farmer says circa 1875), 1872, or even as late as 1880, so I'd rather be careful in case the NGA is approximating it. If I get access to a bio of Watkins I'll check whether it's consistent with his work in the area—he was hired by SP at some point—and/or try to determine exactly on what trip he took that photo. But nearly everywhere the photo crops up, in newspapers and books, it's either attributed to someone else or no one at all; in fact, I only learned of the author when I (luckily) found the photo on Commons.

  Anyway, I shuffled around the images to avoid a gallery entirely; let me know what you think! Ovinus (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Much better. The new placement of the "With Caltrain" now makes sense as an illustration of the text "much less visible from afar", and the other images are now also in logical places in the article. I do prefer having them throughout the article rather than collected in a gallery. One small new issue though: Watkins is not "the tree's earliest known image", but the earliest photo; the sketch by Vischer is an earlier image. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Ovinus (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed, so I will pass the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PS not required for GA, but possibly of interest: This news article states that there are currently roughly 2400 redwoods maintained by the city in Palo Alto, and "many more on private property". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Added. Useful for context, since there's obviously redwoods everywhere. It's quite striking to look at the old photos and think about how visually special it was. Thanks for the very thoughtful review; it has made the article far better. Ovinus (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)