Talk:Hypericum androsaemum/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead image should be captioned "Habit".
  • Done.

• The lead states where the species is native, but the text in "Distribution" doesn't; and then (curiously) the "Invasiveness" section starts to use "native" and "non-native" as if readers knew all about the native distribution again. If they are reading carefully to find the native distribution, they will be thoroughly confused.
  • Mention native and non-native in the distribution section.

• The plant's invasiveness and need for (biological) control need to be mentioned in the lead as one of the most salient points.
  • Split off another paragraph and expounded upon its invasiveness.

• Refs [6] Caprioli and [30] Antognoni would benefit from the |display-authors=3 parameter. Maybe [31] Valentão also.
  • Done.

• I'm not convinced the See also item is at all helpful here.
  • Removed

• The Uses section should mention that like other St John's Worts, the plant is used for anxiety (antidepressant).
  • Added a sentence, limited literature that I could find on its real-world application in that regard.

• Please wikilink medicinal plant somewhere in the Uses section.
  • Done.

• The Cultivation section goes into how-to detail (e.g. "should be placed..."), contrary to policy (WP:NOTHOWTO). Please copy-edit to make it factually and descriptive, not prescriptive and not procedural.
  • I think I've rewritten the section to be compliant with this policy.

• "If there is bark on the stems" --- if there isn't, the stem is dead, no?
  • Simplified.

• "A Polish specimen displaying the striking black color of ripe H. androsaemum berries": why does this caption need to mention the country where the photo was taken? It seems the plant looks much alike across its range.
  • Changed caption.

• "They are winged unilaterally but do not have and wing-like appendages on the ends." Several things wrong here.
  • Just removed in effort to reduce complexity of description.

• I'm not at all sure I see the purpose of the image sequence "Different angles of the small inflorescence".
  • That was the image that best showed the shape and characteristics of a single flower; a lot of articles don't show the flower from certain perspectives. Whether it's needed it totally up to you.
    • Well I think it curious but that's not a GA criterion.

• "The species also has various local names, such as kamaçina in Turkey.[8]" This is probably out of scope for English Wikipedia, which is "not a dictionary". In any case, there are many names in different languages and it seems pointless to provide one. Best we do without.
  • Originally hoped to find multiple other names but could not drum up any, and forgot to remove the one I had added. Taken out now.

• "Carolus Linnaeus" - his name was Carl.
  • Changed.

• There is a "citation needed" tag in "Inflorescence".
  • Not sure why it was added, the citation was located just a sentence later. I have duplicated it anyways for clarity.

• Refs [1] and [4] have been given visible page numbers in the text, unlike all the rest. Best we embed the pages in the refs (|page=328 or whatever) so they don't interfere with reading, and the style appears uniform.
  • Made uniform

• "Stomata are present on the lower surface.[3]" Well, that's true of pretty much all dicots. If you mean "not present on the upper surface" that is a possibly-relevant fact, but it's going into much too much detail for a typical plant article. I see the section has already been trimmed; it needs a bit more trimming ("There are many small vein cells and they are also convex." is an obvious deletion candidate, but there are numerous other incredibly minor statements that really need to go). Take a look at Tussilago, for instance, which has as I'd expect a short paragraph of "Description" which is not subdivided into "Foliage" and such. Frankly, all we need on the foliage is the first sentence "The leaves are arranged in opposite pairs without stipules and lack petioles.[1]", the rest is overkill.
  • The description section is certainly my weak point. I have trimmed it down some more and hope that is sufficient.

• The "Inflorescence" section is also tending to the baroque and needs to be cut down (e.g. "They do not split to release their seeds when ripe, but can sometimes split in three if pressure is applied when they do dry out." could with benefit be cut to one word, "indehiscent", and wikilinked). Again, we don't really need a separate subsection for this. The second paragraph is actually uncited but I suggest you remove nearly all of it: we just need to say the flowers are 15-25mm, yellow, and in groups of 1 to 11.
  • Ditto with previous statement

• The "Phytochemistry" section is verbose and repetitive, e.g. "during the floral development life stage while the flowers are still budding and growing." => "while the flowers are growing", and this also repeats and elaborates upon "which fluctuate throughout the calendar year", suggest you just cut that phrase.
  • Cut down significantly.

• While we're on copy-editing, I suggest you remove most of the instances of "also" from the text.
  • Removed many. Thank you for making me aware of a bad habit in my writing, I'll be sure to add that to the list of words to check for.

• You might consider asking the Guild of Copy-editors to go through the article for you, though they may not have the botanical nous to feel confident to deal with some of the repetition; I think the whole text could be condensed with benefit.
  • I've put in a request; I'll do my best to meet the requirements but if it takes so long that they get to the request, then that's great too.

• The accepted synonym should be listed in the infobox (| synonyms = ).
  • Added.

• Spot-checks are fine.

• All images are licensed on Commons.

Summary

This article needs a little cleaning-up, and will then make a worthy GA. It would be appreciated if you'd mark each item as done with a brief text just below the item; I'll respond or strike the item when I'm satisfied. There is no quid pro quo at GAN, but it'd be great if you could review one or two Biology articles from the GAN list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Knocked out some of the low-hanging fruit. Repetition in the article is definitely present; I felt it would be easier to cut and trim than to find additional info. A copyedit from someone else would probably be the best way to do that, but I can begin on my own. It's a busy time here at the end of the school year, but I'll do my best to be prompt with fixes. I appreciate your review! Fritzmann (message me) 12:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for progress, awaiting updates. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• Apparently my last edit just didn't take, so I've re-done all of that and taken care of the other points to the best of my abilities. I'm hesitant to trim further but I think that's just author's bias. Happy to tackle any other issues that you see! Fritzmann (message me) 16:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.