Talk:Hypericum grandifolium

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Distribution of Hypericum glandulosum and grandifolium.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that garden plants like Hypericum grandifolium have the potential to escape from cultivation and become invasive? Source: "suspected to have spread from horticultural plantings in Marin County" CAL IPC report, "on the Cal-IPC watch list of potentially invasive species" NPS report
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mystery of Crowning (second article, Hanānā)
  • Comment: Old QPQ, but never claimed. If it is ineligible let me know and I have another one. Going to GAN soon, any miscellaneous input is always appreciated!

5x expanded by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hypericum grandifolium; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Looking over the article I find that it is long enough, neutral, copyright problem free, and well sourced. Also well written. Also I think an old QPQ is good, probably encourages more reviewing. I'm sure someone will correct me if there is something against it in policy. The only hold up for me is that I think the hook could be more interesting. Maybe with another cite to something like this paper on island endemism it could be: ALT1: "... that unlike most plants that evolved on islands the large-leaved St John's wort has become invasive on other continents?" What do you think, @Fritzmann2002? I think a little editing could make this hook-y. 🌿MtBotany (talk)) 18:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• @MtBotany: I agree that there are definitely more hook-y fact that could be used, but I don't think that the part about "most plants that evolved on islands" is backed up by the article. I didn't come across that in any of the sources I used, but if you have one that says that and we could include it in the article that would be a great hook. Fritzmann (message me) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Fritzmann2002:, On reflection you are quite correct, that's fact is too close to original research. I tried again looking for a source that actually investigated the relative likelihood of island endemics to become invasive vs. continental native species and came up dry.
  
  I think maybe a slight rewrite of your fact might work. I think just using the common English name or one of the Spanish names might perk it up slightly. I found a source for another name that I added to the article, "corazoncillo", that might improve it. What do you think? 🌿MtBotany (talk)) 18:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @MtBotany: how about ALT2: ... that popular garden plants like malfurada often escape from cultivation and become invasive? Just a little punchier. Fritzmann (message me) 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
  • This one might be a little bit of a stretch but definitely more intriguing: ALT3: ... that "little hearts" escaped from captivity to invade California? Fritzmann (message me) 19:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
    • @Fritzmann2002: I think translating its name as "little hearts" is completely fair. If anyone needs another source on this being a diminutive here is an entry from the Real Academia Española. I'll give it a day for other editors to weigh in on if that is a fair translation and then approve it as the preferred ALT, sound good? 🌿MtBotany (talk)) 20:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

• Works for me! Fritzmann (message me) 03:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • @Fritzmann2002: Potential minor problem, when researching this morning I found that "corazoncillo" is also a common name for Hypericum perforatum. Corazoncillo at Linguee. I think it does not invalidate "little hearts", but I am thinking I should note on the page that it shares the name with the other species. 🌿MtBotany (talk)) 17:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I think that note would be fine, the promoter can also pick between ALT2 and ALT3 if they think one is too ambiguous. Fritzmann (message me) 18:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

We've had a good discussion on hooks and now this is ready. I always enjoy taking a look at your work @Fritzmann2002:. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum grandifolium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fritzmann2002, I'll review this. Will have comments up in a few days at most. Esculenta (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here are my thoughts: Esculenta (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• link petals, seed capsule, invasive, California, ornamental plant, parasitized, Hypericum

• All linked

• might want to add non-breaking spaces to short-form binomials to avoid line breaks (in the cladogram too)

• Done

• "oedemas" is British English spelling, but it seems the rest of the article is in Am. English

• Switched, I had no idea that was British English; thought perhaps it was the more proper medical term

Etymology

• " Large-leaved St John's wort" common names should be lower case

• Done, good catch

• to meet best practices, Spanish common names should be in lang templates

• Done, also for the Latin words

Description

• link nodes, gland, sepal, stamen, petals, fascicles, styles, stigma, seed capsule

• Done

• it's mentioned that Hypericum grandifolium differs from H. androsaemum by having dry fruit; could you add a few more words to describe a "wet" fruit (I'm assuming it's "sticky" or something?)

• A brief aside has been added

• "It has at times been confused with Hypericum × inodorum by some botanists." so how are they distinguished?

• Pretty much the same ways as for hircinum and androsaemum, so I've just mentioned that inodorum is an intermediate between those two to avoid repetition

• link essential oil

• Done

• giving value for essential oil yield is meaningless unless the method used to achieve this number is also given

• I've just removed the clause; I honestly don't think it would be useful either way

Taxonomy

• "in insula Tenerife," the short snippet quote doesn't really add anything, imo

• On a second look, agreed

• I checked Choisy's original description and it seems he had a bit more to say about the species that's not currently acknowledged in the article: "Caulis fruticosus, erectus, rubricans, teres, ramosus; rami obliqui" ("Stem woody, upright, reddening, cylindrical, branched; branches oblique".)

• Thank you! I totally missed that, the line break must have thrown me off.

• I was asked in another GAN to provide a source for my Latin translation, which I think is a good idea (see Buellia frigida). FYI, ChatGPT4's translation of the Latin text is ""Hypericum with a cylindrical stem, with large clasping leaves, with the calyx bent back onto the stalk, with the corolla somewhat linear", which I suppose is equivalent to the translation you've given, but with the technical words converted to more understandable terms.

• Great idea, I've included a note. GPT-3 gives a more technical description, which I actually prefer. After all, the original description is highly technical so it maintains that meaning.

• link synonym, Norman Robson, section

• Done

• the article layout differs slightly from that recommended in the WP:Plants article template (not complaining, just mentioning; I sense an effort to avoid image squeezing)

• Images are always the sticking point, so yes I tend to prefer to arrange based on the appearance of the end product over the proscribed order (until I take something to FAC and get mauled by the MOS, that is)

• shouldn't those alternative names/synonyms go in the taxobox?

• My personal preference is to exclude synonyms from the taxobox, especially when there are numerous names with varying degrees of credibility and reasons for synonymy. My justification is similar to that of removing the "supported by" nations from battle/war infoboxes: sometimes you need full text to convey complex topics accurately

Ecology

• this section also includes habitat and distribution, so I think a more inclusive section title would be appropriate

• Done, it's a bad habit of mine to lump them together

• link naturalized, cuttings

• Done

• "Hypericum grandifolium often grows alongside the shrub Ageratina adenophora." is this just in its native habitats, or also true in California?

• Actually just in California by the looks of the report (or that is the only place the report studied, more accurately)

• "The species is capable of reproducing through its" clarify which species is referred to here

• Done

• Is CA the only place it's been reported from outside of its native distribution?

• I mention the other countries it's been naturalized in and is invasive to, but California is the only one that has solid records on it I could find.

Uses

• one has to be very careful about ascribing medicinal benefits to plant extracts. All three sources are primary, and so do not meet WP:MEDRS standards. I think the header should be "Research" rather than "Uses", as the latter implies that these extracts are currently being used, when it's clear that these are the results of preliminary research. The statements that the extracts have potential against tumor cells and cervical cancer should add a clear qualifier that these are results from laboratory tests

• Agreed, I struggle with this section the most for this genus. Sometimes they are very well studied and attested, other times it is much less established.

• formatting etc. of citations isn't in the GA criteria, but I'll point out that some of the References could use more bibliographic information, e.g.

• Bonkanka et al. 2008 could have doi & pages added
• Choisy 1821 could have publisher & location
• Hooker 1844 & 1857 are missing volume, pages
• etc.

• add cats "Plants described in 1821; Flora of California (or maybe some US invasive species cat?)

• Done

• not GA criteria: add this species to List of invasive plant species in California

• Done

• all four images are relevant, have suitable captions, and are properly licensed

Summary

@Esculenta: I've responded to concerns to the best of my ability, please let me know if there is anything else I can work on! (no rush on this, I'd like to claim this guy for the next round of Wikicup lol) Fritzmann (message me) 14:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• ok, in that spirit, here's some more suggestions:

• how about using doi:10.1016/j.jep.2008.10.031 in the "Research" section? Apparently, extracts from the plant have an anti-depressive effect in mice. I noticed that Prado et al. 2002 is listed in the bibliography but is not actually used as a source; I think this is a precursor study that could be cited as background if discussing the more recent work. doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(01)00393-2 might also be cited as a precursor study.

• Love it, added a sentence.

• other bibliography entries not used as sources: Silva et al. 2021; Teixeira & Monteiro 2017

• Not sure why these weren't included; may be that an edit got eaten somewhere. The Silva one didn't have anything to include so I've removed it. The Teixeira article has some really granular info in the cellular anatomy of the leaves - I'm on the fence about including it. Highly technical, not sure what your thoughts are.

• I asked a "chatty friend" to summarise the Teixeira article for me and tell me any info about the species in question. Feel free to use any or none of what it suggests: "Hypericum grandifolium is characterized by bifacial leaves with a mesophyll thickness below 112 µm, placing it in a distinct group compared to species with thicker mesophyll. The plant falls into a category with spongy parenchyma thickness values below 60 µm, different from those with higher values. Micromorphological analysis reveals differences in leaf characteristics such as epidermal cell walls, epicuticular waxes, and stomata, which are important for species differentiation and quality control in commercial samples."
• @Esculenta: yeah, about what I was anticipating. Just leaf structure measurements, I don't think they're particularly useful to a lay audience unless other identifying info is scarce (or if the leaf morphology actually distinguishes it from otherwise identical species)

• this study doi:10.1007/s11418-010-0473-y discusses effects of H. grandifolium extracts on antinociceptive activity in mice

• Added

• according to doi:10.1016/j.bse.2007.07.004, the common name malfurada is also used for H. foliosum, H. glandulosum, and H. perforatum
• Not GA: common name redirects should be made for malfurada grande, and corazoncillo, and maybe a set index article for malfurada (? not sure on this last one; I'm thinking of somthing like e.g. Inkcap)

• Definitely on my to-do list, will take care of that in the next week or so probably

• doi:10.1016/j.actao.2007.06.005 this article says of H. grandifolium: "These species can be considered opportunistic and helophytic, appearing as important components of the vegetation in areas under other laurel forest disturbances such as fire (Arevalo et al., 2000) and canopy gaps (Arevalo and Fernandez-Palacios, 1998)." which looks like it could be mentioned in the ecology section

• The "helophytic" claim is dubious to me - it looks like the other species are but H. grandifolium doesn't overwinter under water. I've included a mention that it is a colonizing species in areas disturbed by wildfire.

• doi:10.2307/3235826 looks like it has some tidbits that could be used to add to the Hab. + Dist. section, namely its frequency in Tererife, average temperature and temperature range of typical habitats, precipitation mean and average

• Can't access this one, unfortunately. Doesn't look like TWL has it either.

• this article is a review article that mentions some of the biological activities of H. grandifolium (and we like secondary sources!)

• Included

Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: should be good now! Thank you for finding these new articles; may I ask how you have full access to Elsevier? I find a lot of paywalls often stymie my research efforts, and advice on that front is always welcome. Fritzmann (message me) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: any other suggestions? I'm very grateful for all of the additional articles you've helped me incorporate. Fritzmann (message me) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That's all I got :) Please check my final copyedits for accuracy. (Still need to remove the unused Teixeira & Monteiro source.) Spot-checks of source-article compliance look ok, so I think the article meets all of the good article critera; promoting now. Esculenta (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)