Talk:Hypericum sect. Androsaemum

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 18:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

• Hypericum sect. Androsaemum
• Aniculus aniculus

)

• ... that Androsaemum androsaemum is utterly unacceptable, but Aniculus aniculus is perfectly valid? Source: "Androsaemum androsaemum = Androsaemum officinale", and "the repetition of a generic name as a specific name... has always been forbidden" A discussion on Tautonyms. "zoological... Codes have permitted tautonyms... for decades" Proposals to require initial lowercase letters for specific and infraspecific epithets, to permit tautonyms non-retroactively.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Summa confessorum, Template:Did you know nominations/António Corea

Created by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hypericum sect. Androsaemum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment: I'm afraid this hook just won't work. It plays with technical knowledge on too many levels, and is utterly confusing to the general reader even after they've read both articles. I had to spend a minute or so to figure out that it's playing on differences in botanic and zoologic nomenclature rules, where tautonyms are acceptable in the latter but not the former. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Paul 012: what about a simplified ALT1: ... that double names are allowed for animals like Aniculus aniculus, but "forbidden" for plants like Androsaemum androsaemum? Fritzmann (message me) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  • That does make it more understandable to DYK readers, but it still needs to be better explained in the articles. The Androsaemum article, for example, only says, "A publication on botanical tautonyms by Ernst Huth in 1893 rejected the name Hypericum androsaemum, which meant that the new and invalid name Androsaemum androsaemum would take priority," which isn't nearly enough context. Why was it rejected? Why was it invalid? Why was this possible? What happened next? The sources also barely mention these specific examples (not at all in the case of Aniculus, as the source is just touching on the concept). While it's simple logic and I wouldn't regard it as violating WP:SYNTH, I don't think it's acceptable under DYK's rules. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks Paul for the comments, they're very helpful. I would appreciate a second opinion, preferably as part of a full review, so I'm able to assess whether the required changes are fully necessary and if so, if they are feasible or if I should drop the hooks. Fritzmann (message me) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't agree with Paul_012 here. ALT0 is intriguing, which is the whole point of a DYK. It makes you want to click. We can't explain the intricacies of taxonomic nomenclature in 250 characters, nor should we even attempt to. Maybe "botanically unacceptable" instead of "utterly unacceptable"? But otherwise I think it's fun. I understand the desire for more context, but if the sources don't say why it was rejected (and they don't seem to, at a glance), then they don't say. Fritzmann2002, maybe you could expand a bit in the article and say something like "A publication on botanical tautonyms – which are forbidden by taxonomic standards in the field – blah blah". Or something like that, wording not required.
  Once that gets resolved, I think we're good to go here. When nominated, first article was a new GA, and second article was a new article. Both long enough. No POV, CV, or other concerns in either article. Sources appear reliable at a glance - scientific journals and websites. QPQ complete. As I said, I think the hook is interesting enough to make people click, which is exactly what we want at DYK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review PMC! I've added a note in the article that explains tautonyms more explicitly. Let me know if there's anything else that can be changed. Fritzmann (message me) 18:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Single-item list

I am concerned about the single-item list in the "See also" section. Maybe it should be OK to add at least one more item, or remove the bullet and leave a sentence? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: I added Psorospermum androsaemifolium to the list, I hope that is all set now. Can I anticipate a full review from you by any chance? It would be much appreciated! Fritzmann (message me) 20:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for this separate observation, I'm now reviewing the article and will come up with the full review tomorrow. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I studied the article. Spelling and grammar are correct, if not to say more than perfect. The article's prose is clear and concise, but I have concerns about whether it is understandable to an appropriately broad audience, at least in the lead section. The article complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, but I have concerns about whether it complies with the Manual of Style in the lead section.

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article so that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The lead section should explain why the article is notable or should list the most notable or interesting topics about the article; in other words, the reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be specified or at least introduced. The lead section should give a summary of the most important contents of the article. The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long, and the lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article and may be the only portion of the article that they read. For this reason, the lead section should be easy to understand and enjoyable to read—it should not be overly technical, and it should not be uninteresting for a general reader. The lead section's language should be chosen so that the lead section should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, difficult-to-understand terminology should be avoided. Where possible, such terminology should be replaced with synonyms that are easier to understand but not to the point of oversimplification. Hard-to-understand or complex or specific terms should be explained immediately in the sentence where such terms are used, and the wikilinks should be used on such terms. Wikipedia Manual of Style on lead section gives the following explanation (quote): "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined." However, there is a wide margin of appreciation for what is considered "uncommon terms"; we don't have lists of common and uncommon terms to use, and we don't have a poll of a wide general audience to spot such words. Anyway, we are writing an encyclopedia for a general audience. When we write Wikipedia, we do not write a scientific journal or a scientific directory for scientists.

In my opinion, the following terms used in the lead are uncommon to a bigger or lesser extent: "genus", "taxa", "stamen", "monoterpene", "sesquiterpene", "deciduous", escape from cultivation, invasive species, "dark glands." Some of these terms are not even wikilinked. Does "noxious weed" mean the same as "invasive species" related to these species? Although it is explained that monoterpene and sesquiterpene are hydrocarbons, the term itself ("hydrocarbons") is somewhat uncommon. There is a sentence (quote), "Extracts taken from the species have diverse profiles of essential oils, usually dominated by monoterpene or sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, but sometimes containing high concentrations of more unique substances", but a general audience may have a question on whether "more unique substances" is a specific term, and what does "more unique substances" mean? Is it an opposing term for less unique substances such as monoterpene and sesquiterpene? Why are those more unique substances not specified? Shouldn't this information about chemical substances be removed from the lead and moved to a separate section in the body, such as a "Phytochemistry" section? Isn't it worth mentioning something interesting from the Etymology section somewhere in one of the first few sentences of a lead to make the lead more vivid? Isn't it worth mentioning in more detail in a "Cultivation history" section, where it can also be described on how it escaped from cultivation and became an invasive species? What does it invade? Is damage ever calculated in monetary terms?

Apart from the lead section, the article is verifiable with no original research, contains no copyright violations, is broad in its coverage, stable, neutral, and properly illustrated.

If I had no concerns about the lead section, I would have already finished the review with the "pass" results. I have reviewed the whole article, and I have no more objections (apart from those I already gave for the lead section).

Can you give details on species from Hypericum sect. Androsaemum: cultivation history? Is there information on when it escaped from cultivation and became an invasive species? If you don't have such information, this is fine, as it doesn't prevent the article from passing the review on this part—the article is already complete enough. However, I don't think that the lead section is easily enough understandable for the general audience. Can you please improve the lead section? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Review corrections

For clarity, I'm going to break out your suggestions into bullet points and include my response to them. If I miss anything or mischaracterize please feel free to change! This is just to help me keep track

• Lead needs to fully summarize the contents of the article

• Which parts of the article are not summarized by the lede? I have included etymology, taxonomy, description, chemistry, and ecology. Is there a particular section you think should have more?

• Lead needs to be "enjoyable to read"

• I have endeavored make it so; suggestions on this are always welcome!

• Lead needs to not have uncommon terms ("genus", "taxa", "stamen", "monoterpene", "sesquiterpene", "invasive species", "deciduous", escape from cultivation, invasive species, "dark glands")

• Removed: stamen, monoterpene, sesquiterpene, cultivation
• Linked: dark glands
• Explained: invasive species (said they are in non-native area)
• Kept: genus and taxa are unavoidable in biology articles. I try to write at a high school level and I definitely recall learning these terms in Bio 101. Deciduous is similar, there just isn't a way to rewrite that which isn't clunky.

• Is damage calculated in monetary terms?

• No, damage is notoriously difficult to calculate

• Does "noxious weed" means the same as "invasive species" related to these species?

• Noxious weed is used to describe some St John's wort, but not in this context. It usually refers to something that is harmful (noxious) to livestock or people.

• Hydrocarbons is too technical

• Removed from the lede

• What does "more unique substances" mean?

• Rewritten, that was bad phrasing on my part

• Can chemistry be moved to the body?

• There is a section on chemistry in the body that goes into detail. It's better summarized now in the lede

• Can part of etymology section be moved to the lead?

• I've moved a piece of it there

• More details on invasiveness perhaps

• Details on invasiveness are dealt with at the species article; this just gives a broad overview

Please let me know if there are any other comments! Fritzmann (message me) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 OK, thank you for breaking that. I intentionally didn't break them because you may want to give more emphasis on some information and less on other, therefore, you may wish to do other emphasis than I would have done. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, glad I didn't step on any toes there. Were there any other comments for the lead or the body of the article? Fritzmann (message me) 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your exceptionally fast reply. I thought that the parts of the article about the Greek or French origins were not summarized by the lede, but now it is OK, you already improved the lead sufficiently. It was not interesting to enough to read ("enjoyable to read") because it had lots of technical terms—an issue you already resolved. Thank you for your explanation on chemistry-related question. I just thought you might have wanted expand the Chemistry section slightly. The contents of the "Chemistry" section looks small (like a stub), maybe it should have been written more, but anyway it does not trigger violation of the MOS:OVERSECTION because this rule mostly apply when there are multiple small section, not just one small and other are large. Maybe you will add more information about this section in the future. Maybe it is also worth mentioning somewhere (probably not in the lead, but you decide, maybe in the "See also") that the family Hypericaceae is commonly known as the St. John's wort family, however, as this family contains many section, this particular section (Androsaemum), doesnțt include St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) which is a part of sect. Hypericum. Thank you also for the explanation about the "invasive" term, althought the "Ecology" section covers the invasiveness, maybe you will find reliable sources to claim that the species of this sect. are not noxious weeds, i.e. they only fill open spaces and displace native plants for these area, but are not harming plants that are cultivated e.g. by the farmers. However, those things about expanding the Chemistry section and about mentioning the St. John's wort and about weeds are just suggestions for probable future improvement of the article. Now, after your changes, the article satisfies the GA criteria. Thank you for writing the good article and thank you for the especially fast reply where you resolved all my concerns. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2024 (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.