Talk:Anne Frank tree

Image

Out of curiosity, is the tree in the centre of this image the Anne Frank tree? Or is it the one shown here. It'd be nice to turn up a freely-licensed image before it's felled. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

These are on the canal side, I think the tree is at the rear side.--Patrick (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a web site about the tree but it has Flash damage so can be hard to navigate. This page shows the tree is the large one in a central courtyard for the block. (SEWilco (talk) 17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

We have an image now. Yay! Miranda 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not the right one. The Flickr caption is wrong. User:Krator (t c) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not? There was a different tree out front which was mislabeled. I haven't tried yet to confirm this one by matching up the buildings and the tree with other available images. Part of the latest image does match a description. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I had made my decision on analysis of the houses to the background. However, looking at the pictures above leads me to believe it might just be. The houses looked very uncommon for the location. User:Krator (t c) 21:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

My initial glance was that the buildings behind this dark tree might be the Anne Frank house. I'll have to look more closely to be more confident. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be the houses to the Northwest of your 19 nov. link. above User:Krator (t c) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 update

Some of the material has dates and phrasing which suggests an update is needed; there also is a photo request. (SEWilco 05:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Which material, specifically? I just wrote a chunk, so it can't be that part... User:Krator (t c) 20:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The version before September 17 (when I wrote the above) had some phrasing which implied that things were scheduled to have happened in the past, but nothing had been updated. The phrasing and updates look much better now. (SEWilco (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The writing is not very good, and just as an example, in the sentence, Foundation & neighbours..., is that an organization? Because unless it is a proper name, the character & is not to be used. Also, "neighbours" is spelled incorrectly

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Under referenced in some places

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am sorry, but the article did not pass good article status. The main problem is the writing, and a few other issues. Thank you for your work in improving the article thus far, and good luck with further improvments. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Which of the quick fail criteria did this fail? Also, neighbour is not an incorrect spelling. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is my fault, you have spelled that correctly. To answer your question, the writing is not very good. I suggest requesting a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors. Also, there is a lack of references. I hope that when these issues are addressed, you ask for another review. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't contribute to this article. Poor prose isn't a quick fail criteria, and the criteria pertaining to references, says a complete lack of references. This article does in fact have references. --Holderca1 ^talk 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it has references. However, in order to be a GA, every paragraph needs to be sourced. Also, yes, poor writing, is a quick-fail criteria. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same criteria? Which of the five are you refering to? --Holderca1 ^talk 22:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article criteria number 1 says that a GA must be reasonably well written. This article is not very well written, thus, it does not pass the good article criteria. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That is the GA criteria, not the quick fail criteria. You can only quick fail an article if it fails any of the five quick fail criteria. Otherwise it should be put on hold. --Holderca1 ^talk 22:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

By that theory, if the article is filled with typos, is poorly written, doesn't have punctuation, has incomplete sentences, etc., although it does not fit into the quick-fail criteria, then it should be on-hold. The good article criteria clearly states that good prose is one of the key criteria of a good article. Also, as I said, every paragraph needs to be sourced, so that is another reason why it failed. If you feel my review was in error, please ask for a reassessment. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, I never said it should be promoted, but put on hold, I know what the good article criteria says. If you disagree with the quick fail criteria, than you need to start a discussion to have it changed, not create new criteria on the fly. The quick fail criteria for references says that it if it "completely" lack references. This article has references, it probably needs more, but it does have references. Also, you can fix prose problems rather quickly, much sooner than the 7-day hold period. --Holderca1 ^talk 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the tree fell

• Some of the images in the Reuters report show, for most of the cross-section of the trunk, the characteristic fracture pattern of decayed wood across all the trunk cross-section except a thin rim of sapwood. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not the end?

• Time wll show if the stump grows new shoots from the cut edge of its bark. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

June 2011

In June 2011, the Support Anne Frank Tree Foundation accused a contractor of destroying the remnants of the tree, preventing pieces from reaching Jewish museums globally. (See: "Anne Frank's tree falls and row rises in Amsterdam")

Petey Parrot (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Frank tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080119161102/http://www.support-annefranktree.nl:80/index_en.htm to http://www.support-annefranktree.nl/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Frank tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203031108/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/saplings-anne-franks-tree-take-root-us to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/saplings-anne-franks-tree-take-root-us

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anne Frank tree. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AUc6lYPp?url=http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/1316439/anne-frankboom-kan-blijven-staan.html to http://www.nu.nl/news/1316439/10/'Anne_Frankboom_kan_blijven_staan'.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AUc4H3QR?url=http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/1322126/anne-frankboom-nog-sterk-genoeg.html to http://www.nu.nl/news/1322126/10/rss/Bomenstichting_test_sterkte_'Anne_Frankboom'.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716183610/http://www.jg.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071113%2FNEWS04%2F71113016&template=printart to http://www.jg.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20071113%2FNEWS04%2F71113016&template=printart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)