# Talk:De Boom Die Alles Zag

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the article!.
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:De Boom Die Alles Zag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Styyx (talk · contribs) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wasianpower (talk · contribs) 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this, this is my first GA review so I'll be requesting a second opinion as well from a more experienced reviewer. Cheers! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


### General comments
? Consider changing "A wooden box designed by artist Lucas van Herwaarden was built around the tree in 1992." to "A planter designed by artist Lucas van Herwaarden was built around the tree in 1992."; that's how the source describes the installation. Consider also including details about how the planter is used, it seems from a brief perusal that it's usually filled with flowers.

Reasonable, done.
? Consider changing the beginning of the Subsequent history section, as the way it currently reads, "The soil under the tree was replaced with sand after the accident. The roots were only able to recover to a limited extent inside the sand. To prevent it from falling over, the tree was attached to neighbouring trees with two cables," is very choppy.

Reworded a bit by merging the first two sentences.
? could never be determined => "could not be determined"

Done.
? Residents of Bijlmermeer and victims set up a temporary memorial place around the tree almost immediately after the disaster, for whom the tree now has an emotional value The "for whom" part of this sentence is a bit ambiguous about who it refers to. Maybe something like "... and the tree has subsequently held emotional value for many of the people affected"?

Copy-pasted that. :p


#### Verification spot check
Will be checking these claims for the verification spot check. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Y De Boom Die Alles Zag is a grey poplar 
Y The accident killed 43 people, though the number of ground fatalities is uncertain as the buildings housed many illegal immigrants.
Y Following the crash, the soil near the accident site was polluted by harmful substances and resulted in the removal of many trees, but De Boom Die Alles Zag was kept at its place.
Y Due to the eye-shaped patterns on the trunk, the species is called the "ogenboom" (transl. eyetree) in The Netherlands and the tree is considered to be an eyewitness to "the panic[,] upheaval [and] the aftermath in the years that followed [the crash]."
Y The soil under the tree was replaced with sand after the accident. The roots were only able to recover to a limited extent inside the sand.
? Residents and victims set up a temporary memorial place around the tree "almost immediately" after the disaster. -- I think there's an error in the citation here, though the information is correct. I'm not seeing that info in the first source, and while it is in the second source, it is on page 13 rather than 17.

I've returned to the original source that was cited there. Probably somewhere during copy-editing someone changed the sentence structure and messed up the sources (probably me lol).


### Review
Will be working on this over the next few days. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

The lede says that The tree was damaged by the crash and fire [of El Al Flight 1862], but this information is not cited and not present anywhere else in the article. The article does say the tree managed to survive the impact and subsequent fire, but does not mention any damage to the tree from either event.
Changed lead.
I have a few prose issues with the second paragraph in section Crash of El Al Flight 1862. The wording reads a bit awkward to me, specifically It did lose a part of its roots during the sanitization process does not read very well to me, and Due to the eye-shaped patterns on the trunk, the species is called the "ogenboom" (transl. eyetree) in The Netherlands and the tree is considered to be an eyewitness to "the panic[,] upheaval [and] the aftermath in the years that followed [the crash]." is a bit hard to follow.
Some changes made.
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 
See concern about the lede claim above. Assuming good faith on the Dutch newspapers cited being reliable sources, since I can't find info on their reliability.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
We need some expansion on what the Het Groeiend Monument is for better understanding of the subject.
Surprisingly little to say about it actually.
I think it'd be good it to mention/describe the The Carpet Of Mosaics (Het mozaïektapijt) part of the monument since it surrounds the tree?
Makes sense. Added.
It would be helpful to have 1-2 more sentences of summary on El Al Flight 1862 and the causes of the crash, since that flight is very important to this article.
Great idea, done.
This source compares the tree to   The Survivor Tree and the Anne Frank tree, this seems like it may be worth mentioning in the article.
Added.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Quick look at the history and talk page show nothing of concern.
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Assist review
For your first time review, wasianpower (talk · contribs) you have done quite a good job in also checking the claims and so on. I personally think however that the lead sentence is also rather chunky and could be split, with the significance of its survival perhaps in a second paragraph.
I express a bit of concern for File:El Al Flight 1862 memorial 04-04-2018h.jpg – per Netherlands FOP, it doesn't seem that the map and text would be under Freedom of Panorama.
The article itself is in great shape actually, and cited to reliable sources or local news articles.
That's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and put the review on hold, I don't have any further comments for the current state of the article, once the above are fixed I think I'll feel good to pass it! The most major concern I think is regarding the image copyright, may need a second opinion from someone familiar with Dutch copyright law. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, wasianpower. I have gone through your final remarks and made some changes. Let me know if I missed anything. ZKang123, I have removed the map and changed it with the accident site to portray a similar view. Going through the municipality's website for maps, they keep the copyrights of the maps (but do "encourage" their publication with a citation, which isn't really anything for us). I don't believe I can throw the second part of the first sentence into the next paragraph, because that's literally why this tree is anything of noteworthy in the first place. Styyx (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't have much issue with the first sentence, I think it reads fine. I'll be doing one last sweep through the article tonight then if it looks good to you @ZKang123 I think it's good to go. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I made one minor spelling fix but it looks good to me. Will pass it once @ZKang123 gives the thumbs up! Thank you both for being so friendly and making my first review so enjoyable! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Everything else is in order, then.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)