Wikipedia:Peer review/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1

Hypericum sechmenii

I've listed this article for peer review in advance of taking to to FAC. I've already received input from one other editor and have incorporated those suggestions, but I would appreciate another set of experienced eyes. I am confident in the broadness and coverage of the article, and have spent a great deal of time working to make it less full of jargon and more understandable. I am most concerned about the tightness of the prose; I am looking for places where the writing is not up to FA standard and for ways to improve it. Because it is my first time at FAC, I would also like input on any niche MOS requirements I may have neglected. I don't have any other major obligations at the moment so my responses should be prompt. Thank you in advance, Fritzmann (message me) 15:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: This has been open for over a month without comment. Are you still interested in feedback, or can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: I mean, yes... getting a Peer Review was the idea behind listing this article for Peer Review. Could you please return it to the Unanswered tab when you have the chance. Fritzmann (message me) 13:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I check in on PRs, especially those looking to FAC, because the longer they stay open the less likely they are to get comments and then they sit in the PR queue for months. I suggest posting requests at talk pages of the Wikiprojects attached to this article asking for feedback. Also, since you are still working towards your first successful FAC, I suggest asking a mentor for feedback and reviewing articles at WP:FAC to build goodwill amongst FAC regulars. I'm not sure how to put a PR back in the "Unanswered" list at PR, but soliciting feedback is more likely to get a response. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber

• The subsections in the Description section look a little small. I would have merged them all, leaving Similar species as a separate subsection, but not a deal-breaker by any means.
  • I've merged down the section into "vegetative structures" and "flowering structures", but it could definitely all just be under one heading.

• I'd use either cm or mm and stick to the same for the description - we've also always converted to imperial units - someone will likley mention that at FAC.
  • Changed to all centimetres, if the conversions get brought up I'll change it but previous advice was that they made it harder to read and weren't necessary.

• Hypericum sechmenii is found [in and] among a number of other plant species. - bracketed bit redundant. Could also say "growing with"
  • I've shortened two sentences into one to reduce redundancy, hopefully it isn't too cumbersome now.

• First 3 sentences of Distribution and habitat are a little repetitive and could be melded down to two sentences I think
  • I've merged the latter two sentences, but that section could probably be written more efficiently than what I did.

• Link endemic and abiotic.
  • Endemic is linked in a previous paragraph at first mention, linked abiotic

• I did these edits. Feel free to revert if I inadvertently changed the meaning.

In the middle of a few things tonight. Gotta run but will pop in later. Is looking okay overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I've made changes as noted. If you think the article would do alright at FAC, at this point I think I would be comfortable receiving comments there as long as I had some mentorship. Fritzmann (message me) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)