Talk:Trees of Mystery
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harrisky, Danitpierce, 4happyholiday.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class becuase it uses the [[Category:California stub]] on the article page.
- If you agree with this assessment, please remove this message.
- If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WikiProject California|class=stub|importance=}} above to the appropriate class and removing the stub template from the article.
How About Adding.....
[edit]This article should include some description of the trees and what makes them unusual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BayBoomer1959 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Another editor had added them; I've suggested arranging them in a list and removing redundant descriptions elsewhere in the text. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Tourist Brochure
[edit]I've taken out the sections that look like a tourist brochure (extended discussion of "feud" about Paul Bunyan with Maine and Minnesota and about Stephen King is off topic, and it is not even near Los Angeles!) and would be grateful for additional factual content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.244.80.230 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- After looking at what was removed, most of it indeed seemed to be promotional material not written in a proper style for an encyclopedia; some of it was also lacking sources. It may be that some of the information can be reworked, like distinguishable notable features, perhaps (ideally properly sourced). Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 04:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've made further suggestions for rewriting or removing editorial (non-"encyclopedic") content, and making the text more concise and consistent. Hope it's okay; comments welcome! ¶ Having visited ToM several times with my family as a child, I feel a special connection to the attraction, which is largely and impressively unchanged since the '50s. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- That is much better, thank you for the improvements. — PaleoNeonate — 23:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
- I've made further suggestions for rewriting or removing editorial (non-"encyclopedic") content, and making the text more concise and consistent. Hope it's okay; comments welcome! ¶ Having visited ToM several times with my family as a child, I feel a special connection to the attraction, which is largely and impressively unchanged since the '50s. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)