Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2023 [1].

Hypericum sechmenii[edit]

Nominator(s): Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very obscure Turkish plant species in the genus Hypericum, which is where most of my editing experience lies. It's my first attempt at FAC, so I wanted to have an article with very narrow coverage that I could be confident I had completely encapsulated. I've worked on the article on and off for several years, gotten it through a "very thorough review" at GAN, and received more granular feedback from Chiswick Chap and Cas Liber. I now believe it is as ready as it can get, and am excited to receive feedback and finish my first (of hopefully many) FA. Fritzmann (message me) 01:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens[edit]

Good to see a plant here! Comments below:

  • Its appearance and characteristics were first described in 2009 – It seems to me that not only the apparance and characteristics, but the entire species was first described in 2009? So this is potentially confusing.
    • I was previously advised that a technical term like "species description" shouldn't be in the lede, but I concur that it makes more sense to use the terminology - it is pretty self-evident
  • You could link "first described" to Species description.
    • Done
  • The taxonbox lacks the year of description behind the author names.
    • Per the ICBN, plant species are not supposed to have the publication year after the author names; I haven't been able to find a Wikipedia policy that countermands that standard but please let me know if there is one
  • After this description, – Somehow seems redundant, maybe remove.
    • Rewritten
  • the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus Hypericum – not sure what this means. Was the species previously referred to a different genus?
    • Ocak and Koyuncu described the species and assigned it to Hypericum. The genus is subdivided quite rigorously, however, because of its wide diversity. Robson was the one to incorporate H. sechmenii into that subdivision by assigning it to a section and subsection. I've rewritten the sentence to hopefully make it more clear, but it may still need some tweaking.
  • typically 3–6 cm,[2] sometimes to 8 cm. – In height? In diameter?
    • Tall, fixed
  • I wonder if it is worth trying and emailing the describers of the species and asking for better pictures for Wikipedia.
    • I've already done that, several times actually. I received one response but it was garbled and just redirected me back to the papers I already had, and subsequent attempts went unanswered.
  • Directly beneath the cuticle are one to two bark-like layers of periderm which are composed of several layers of dead cells. Beneath the periderm are several layers of thin-walled tissue cells called a cortex. The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem. – I am not sure here if you are describing general plant anatomy or if all of this is specific for this species? (I do not mean to say that everything has to be species specific, not at all – but you should make clear to which taxon this information applies). I see, though, that this is not mentioned by the source … which is a bit unfortunate, as I do not know what to do with this information.
    • Most species of Hypericum have not had this sort of anatomical analysis done, so yes it is very unclear. I'm not an expert on the cellular morphology of different plant clades, and I included it since I figured it would be easier to remove than to add. If it is an issue I can spend some time digging into this, if not then I will let it be for the moment.
  • What are amber glands? (edit: you are referring to a color? Maybe make this clear? And link to Amber (color))
    • Yes, amber-colored, linked and clarified. If amber-colored is only necessary for the first instance let me know and I will remove subsequent clarifications.
  • H. huber-morathii has a slightly larger region on its end where the grooves meet. – You mean the pollen grain, not "H. huber-morathii", right?
    • Clarified
  • Anatomically, Hypericum sechmenii is also similar to – What is the "anatomically" doing there? It looks redundant because the article does not mention any features that are not anatomical.
    • The anatomy refers to the similar stomata adaptations and the differences in their palisade tissue structure. Perhaps, "has similar adaptations to..." would be more appropriate, if your think that is warranted?
  • inner stem tissue and pith tissue – Is there a difference here, or are these the same? If different, link/explain. If same, then stick to the same term.
    • To my understanding, the inner stem tissue is made up of either xylem or pith - in the case of H. thymopsis, there is only xylem; in the case of H. sechmenii', there is both xylem and pith. I've linked pith to its article
  • the species was formally described in volume 46 of the peer-reviewed journal Annales Botanici Fennici. – looks like excessive detail to me.
    • Cut down to just mention the journal.
  • Hypericum sechmenii was described by Atila Ocak and Onur Koyuncu alongside Filiz Savaroglu and Ismuhan Potoglu – the latter two are not authors of the species, though. Mentioning them could be confusing. I suggest to remove the entire sentence (also because it basically just repeats the previous sentence).
    • Done
  • The taxonomy section seems a bit wordy for me in relation to its content. The language could be more concise.
  • with almost every species in the genus being placed into one of these sections based on their morphology and phylogeny. – Based on their morphology and phylogeny? Are you sure? Phylogeny is based on morphology.
    • My bad, phylogeny /= molecular phylogenetics, fixed
  • However, Hypericum sechmenii was omitted from this original monograph, as it had not yet been identified as a unique species. – It was not knowingly "omitted" then, right? I would remove this sentence.
    • Would "not included" be more appropriate? I'd like to keep this as there are very few species that Robson didn't include in the original monograph, which makes this one someone unique.
  • After Hypericum sechmenii was described, it was then placed into the overall framework of the genus – See comment for lead.
    • I've just cut this sentence in the name of brevity, I think there is sufficient context in the rest of the paragraph.
  • Hypericum sechmenii is one of numerous species of Hypericum that are endemic to Turkey. – Can this be more specific? We should know how many described endemics in Turkey, hopefully?
    • The number is in flux as species are described, synonymized, and their range is clarified. However, I've pretty easily found a 2019 report that puts the number at 45, so I've included that.
  • Isotype, what is this?
    • I've added a note, but if there's a way you think could do it more elegantly please let me know
  • I am not sure about the "Table of collected specimens of Hypericum sechmenii". It seems a bit excessive, and I wonder if it can be of use to anyone. But most of all: Do you think it is exhaustive, or is it just those specimens you know about? It might get outdated quickly, too,
    • It includes all the recorded collections of the species in published academic journal articles. No, I don't think it is strictly necessary - do you think any of the information would be warranted to be incorporated into the paragraph prior?
  • Anything about the fruits? I can't remember reading about them in the description.
    • Sadly nothing I've been able to find. I also just took a look at the other species in its subsection and none of them have fruits descriptions either. It may be that the fruits are largely diminished or not visible - but I'm not sure that's right and it would be entirely speculation
  • That is all from me. What I really like about this article is that the terms are well-explained, and that there is an extensive "similar species" section. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much, I've corrected each point as noted and had a few further queries. Fritzmann (message me) 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination[edit]

Hello Fritzmann, and welcome to FAC. Given you haven't previously had an FA to your credit, this nomination will need to undergo spot-checks for source-text integrity and a review for over-close paraphrasing before being considered for promotion. No action is required on your part regarding this note. Best of luck with your nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, is there anything else that needs to be done with the nomination? If my count is correct there are seven supports, and all opposes have been struck. I am assuming that there still needs to be a referencing review. Fritzmann (message me) 00:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned spot-checks (for source-text integrity or possible overclose paraphrasing) and a general source review that will examine the reliability, verifiability and formatting of the sources. Fellow coordinator Gog the Mild has put in a request here. A reviewer should turn up any day now. FrB.TG (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

Thank you for engaging with our FA nomination process. I think the prose needs some editing to bring it to FA standard.

  • First of all, there are lots of "whichs" that need a preceding comma or changing to "that".
    • DonecOMM
  • This sounds odd to me "the species was incorporated into the organization of the genus". What is meant by "incorporated into the organization"? Does it mean added?
    • Changed the wording per your and Jens's recommendation
  • "The tissue of the roots is completely covered in elements of water transport tissue called xylem". What is meant by "elements of"? And it reads as though xylem and phloem are unique to these plants.
    • I'll be honest, reviewing the source they just say "xylem elements" so I'm not sure. Looking at the pictures provided, it appears that they just mean that there is a layer of tissue surrounded by a layer of xylem. I'm going to change it to reflect that, but if you have other input it would be welcome.
  • There's a similar problem here "On the top and bottom sides of the leaves there are pores that regulate gas exchange, called stomata," lots of plants have stomata.
    • I'm not sure how to make these terms sound general while maintaining their readability for laymen. All of the terms are linked, and following any of them would demonstrate that these features are common to most plants as opposed to restricted to the species.
      • You could say "On the top and bottom sides of the leaves there are pores (stomata) that regulate gas exchange." Graham Beards (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Makes sense to me, thank you
  • Does "seeds" really need a link?
    • I would argue that if roots, stems, seed capsule, leafstalks, and petals are linked, then yes. I think all those terms are relatively similar in their complexity, so if they are simple enough then I would unlink all of them.
      • I think "roots", "petals" and "seeds" don't need links. The same with "appearance" which is linked to morphology. Also, please make sure terms are not linked twice. I saw climate change for example, and stomata. In such a short article, one link is enough. Graham Beards (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I've gone through and removed the suggested links, and I think I've gotten all of the duplicates (aside for the species in the taxonomy, which I think should be linked twice to reduce ambiguity). If there are any others, feel free to point them out or remove them. Fritzmann (message me) 14:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives) that deter some herbivorous insects." And above we have " which a 2020 paper theorized could deter herbivory because of their toxicity." Can we amalgamate these disjointed statements?
    • The druse crystals and red glands are two separate repellants for herbivores. The crystals are spiked and cause irritation, while the glands secrete those phenolic compounds that are toxic. Each paragraph describes these two separate features.
  • This is odd "it has also been closely compared to Hypericum thymopsis." Do you mean it compares closely?
    • Removed "closely" to reduce ambiguity
  • This sounds odd "a genus-wide monograph".
    • Reworded to "monograph of the entire genus Hypericum"

-Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Comment: I'm very supportive of the prospect of a featured article on an obscure species like this, but I find it very difficult to support the use of non-free images of an extant species like this. Perhaps if the species was known only to exist in an area that was genuinely inacessible, this could be justified, but I'm really not convinced in this case. Has any effort been made to reach out to individuals who may have taken photos, to ask if they'd be willing to release them under a free license? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in response to Jens, I have repeatedly reached out to the authors of the original description and the anatomical study to request additional information and the release of image rights. Unfortunately, I only received one response which seemed supportive and asked which information I needed. I replied to ask and followed up, but never received a further response. I also reached out to the herbariums that house the specimens, also to no avail. I think that the first image in the infobox is absolutely critical, while the second one on pollen morphology is less so. However, even the latter one demonstrates the minute differences between this species and several closely related ones. Even for an expert, microscopic differences in pollen may be the only way to tell them apart.
As for the genuinely inaccessible part, this species is known from an area of less than ten square kilometers in the rugged, rural mountain region of Central Anatolia. There are fewer than 250 plants remaining, and that was from a 2013 estimate. It may very well be extinct by now. If that doesn't make the species inaccessible, then I don't know what would. Fritzmann (message me) 12:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but I remain opposed to the use of the non-free images. We have several featured articles on similarly obscure species (e.g., the mammal Akodon spegazzinii and the mushroom Gymnopilus maritimus) that sadly go without lead images because of the lack of freely licensed material. If we had reliable sources noting that the species was extinct or probably extinct, then I think things would be different. But, until that time, I worry that the non-free images here are replaceable as per the non-free content criteria. (I also worry, incidentally, about criterion 2. But my main concern is about replaceability.) Josh Milburn (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose while the non-free images remain, per above. Sorry. Anyone is welcome to strike this oppose once the images are removed. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I would like a second opinion but if there are others who are hesitant about their use then I will remove the images. Fritzmann (message me) 12:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be an interesting precedent if this passed with non-free images. I've raised the question here to hopefully bring some more eyes and ensure a clear consensus. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, I am very interested as well. I think there is a good discussion to be had in this regard. Fritzmann (message me) 22:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here because Josh posted a request for input at WT:NFC. I'm sensitive to the issues raised by Fritzmann. Difficult to find, yes. Even more difficult to properly identify, yes. But, this sets a new precedent and I am very loathe to agree with it. The species, so far as we know, still exists. Unless we have reliable sources indicating extinct or probably extinct, then we are speculating about its non-existence. We don't know. Not knowing its current status doesn't generate an exception to WP:NFCC. What we do know; there's a Turkish language Wikipedia which has over 500,000 articles. The province where this plant exists has a population of over 900k people. No, there's no article on this species on the Turkish language Wikipedia, but again that doesn't generate an exception to NFCC policy. I feel that unfortunately the image needs to be deleted. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also here because of Josh's post. It's refreshing to see an NFCC debate that isn't about criteria #8, which is heavily subjective. Unfortunately, in this case the issue is criteria #1, which is much less subjective. The image has got to go. In addition but entirely separate to that, I don't think *any* featured article should have *any* non-free images, with no exceptions. An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content. Therefore I also oppose the nomination while there are any non-free images in it. The FAC coordinators should feel free to strike my oppose i.f.f. the images are removed or replaced. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Squirrel Conspiracy, Hammersoft, and J Milburn: Thanks for leaving your thoughts, the reasoning seems sound to me. I can't say I agree but I understand why a hardline stance needs to be taken. Perhaps removing the images will reduce the quality of this article, but will contribute moreso to the overall mission of the project. Fritzmann (message me) 10:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Precedent-wise: Way back when, we had the non-free File:SaharanCheetah.gif on Northwest African cheetah because the species in question was critically endangered (less than 250 individuals) so creating a free image was not a sure thing. It was eventually replaced with File:NorthWest African Cheetah (14846381095).jpg but this edit claims that this image was incorrectly identified. How widespread is this plant and where does it occur? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is better not to have non-free images in the article if there is a reasonable chance that one might be created (or made free), and the precedent set by including one would be bad. Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}? —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure I've had an FAC pass through with non-free media in it, and I don't see the problem here either. I disagree very strongly with the thought that "An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopaedia while containing non-free content": that's a misleading idea of what a free encyclopaedia is and is not - as far as I am aware - based on any policy or guideline.
    I looked at the last fourteen articles I've taken to FAC (all of which are from this year). Five of those fourteen have non-free images: Private Case, Portland Spy Ring, Ken "Snakehips" Johnson, Death of Kevin Gately and David Kelly (weapons expert).
    User:Nikkimaria, you look into images at FAC more than anyone else: do you have an opinion on this? - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC) (added three recent examples - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    • I haven't the time to go through the archives but I know we have accepted non-free media in FAs in the past. For some reason this FA springs to mind. It's unfair on the nominator to say that ""An article can't claim to be the best of the best on a free encyclopedia while containing non-free content". I would question the value of the scanning electron micrograph in this candidate, but I don't see a problem with the lead image. Graham Beards (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've passed numerous image reviews on articles with non-free images with no complaint. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria does implicitly allow non-free images, providing that they meet the usual rules. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is not whether FAs may contain non-free images: Non-free images are fine if they can't possibly be replaced by free images and significantly enhance reader understanding. In this article, it is unquestionable that the images would be very helpful to readers; the question is whether we believe it is possible to replace them by free images. —Kusma (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess my thing is that isn't every image technically replaceable by a free image? We could theoretically request that the owner of every non-free image release it for use... but that is highly unlikely to happen in any case. Could someone hypothetically trek into the remote Turkish mountains to search for a probably extinct plant no one cares about on a volunteer basis for an online encyclopedia? Yes. But it is not realistic at all to expect that, just like it ism't realistic to expect that every owner of a non-free image will release it for free use. Fritzmann (message me) 12:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Images of non-free art are not replaceable by free images (although I'd like to note that some other language Wikipedias manage to write excellent articles without any non-free content at all). There is a bit of a grey area here between "it is theoretically possible to create a free image" and "it is reasonably possible to create a free image". I mean, if someone finds a cave on Mars and takes photographs of something amazing in the interior, but does not release them under a free license, it seems prohibitively difficult to send a Wikipedian to Mars to take a free photograph, so we might just go with the non-free image, at least until a new mission to this cave is announced. On the other hand, enough people go to the summit of Mount Everest that we can reasonably expect free images to exist (and indeed there are many). The relevant policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, by the way, just says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Can a free image of this rare plant that is known to exist in Turkey be made? It seems more "Mount Everest" than "cave on Mars" difficulty to me, but others may well disagree. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the fact that at least one person here has said they don't think an FA should have any non-free images, Kusma, do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? It looks like Fritzmann has both searched for one and reached out to possible sources that may have them. If there are no free ones, and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one. This is, as far as I am aware, standard practice on all articles. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are mistaken. For example, we do not allow non-free images of living people if no free images are known to exist, in order to encourage the creation of such images. —Kusma (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, that's not the case here. I think opposes based on personal views on the usage of non-free content should be disregarded. Let's stick to policies and established guidelines please. Graham Beards (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to me being mistaken, I am not: we are rather obviously not talking about non-free images of living people. I'll ask again: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used? If not, then use of a non-free image is within the NFCC guidelines and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree that an oppose based on the fact that there is non-free content in the article at all should be disregarded. But this is a distraction; here is not the place for a conversation about whether NFC should be banned in FAs. We have a clear policies about the use of non-free content, and these policies are explicitly referred to in the featured article criteria. These criteria policies say that non-free content cannot be used if it could be replaced by free content. (So, for example, SchroCat's view -- 'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy. We can't have replacable non-free content even if it hasn't yet been replaced.) The question is whether the non-free content used in this article is replaceable. I believe it is. So does Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy. (The Squirrel Conspiracy also separately has a view about developing much firmer anti-NFC policies.) I think Kusma thinks that it is, but I may be misinterpretting Kusma's comments. Fritzman believes, as far as I understand, that the images are not replaceable in the relevant sense. (I would probably agree if it was the case that we had a reliable source saying that the species was extinct, or even probably extinct.) Some others (Graham Beards and SilverTiger12) have supported the use of the images (or one of them), which presumably means they either think the image is not replaceable, don't know about the policy regarding replaceability, or believe that the policy does not apply here for some reason. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entirely wrong to say that "'If there are no free [images], and none forthcoming from other sources, then having a non-free seems appropriate until such time as someone releases a free one' -- is clearly completely contrary to long-established policy". We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones. When free ones subsequently become available (falling out of protection, released by copyright holder etc), then the non-free can be replaced: this is entirely within the spirit and letter of the policy. With regard to this article (which is what this page is for), searches have shown no free-use images that can be used, so a non-free image is entirely appropriate. Again, this is within the NFCC guidelines, FA criteria and current standard practice. I'll also ask you, Josh, the same question that has been ducked by others: do you know of any free images of Hypericum sechmenii that could be used in this article? - SchroCat (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The mere non-existence of free images is not an acceptable reason to use non-free images instead. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the minute area in which this plant just about survives means it's not going to be created. Opposing a decent article over a picture of a rare plant only found in a tiny area? Seems a massive overreaction to me, but I guess everyone's mileage differs. However, we now have an article of a plant in which no-one can see what the plant looks like. That's a bureaucratic nonsense - an over-adherence and overly-narrow reading of the guidelines which does our readers a massive disservice and not a constructive step by any measure. - SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you are continuing to insist that 'We are able to use non-free images (where appropriate etc), where there are no free ones', even when NFCC#1 has been explained several times, is striking. At risk of repetition: No, we cannot use non-free content just because we don't have any free content. We can only use non-free content when we couldn't have any free content. That's what the relevant policies and guidelines say, and have said for many years. If you believe that we couldn't have any free content in this case, then fine, that's an interesting discussion that we could have. But your insistence that we can use non-free content when we don't have any free content isn't down to reasonable disagreement; it just shows that you don't (or didn't) understand the policy. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the snarky nonsense, Josh. We now have an article of a plant where we don't know what the plant looks like. You have done the readers a disservice in ensuring the removal of the image. Nice work. Fritzmann, sorry you've been forced into this step: FAC is normally much more constructive than this. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out above, we already have numerous featured articles about living species that go unillustrated because of the lack of free content, including some that I wrote. That's the price that we have collectively decided to pay by having strict guidelines and policies limiting the use of non-free content. You're welcome to think that those policies and guidelines are nonsense, or do a disservice to readers, but I don't think it's fair that you take out your frustration with them on me. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify for the closing co-ordinator, Josh, User:The Squirrel Conspiracy, you have both opposed here: can you clarify on which of the FA criteria are you officially opposing, and if it relates specifically to number 3, could you clarify on what basis you think this breaches the NFCC guidelines? - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was being clear, but I'm happy to be as explicit as I can. I am opposing based on WIAFA#3, which stipulates that '[n]on-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content'. That links criterion links to our non-free content criteria (which, for the record, are a policy, not guidelines). NFCC#1 requires explains that 'Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose'. I believe (along with, at least, Hammersoft and The Squirrel Conspiracy) that a free equivilent 'could be created' in this case. Just as there is a very, very strong presumption against a non-free image of a living person, so there is a very strong presumption against a non-free image of an extant species. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The policy with regard to "could be created" is vague and open to interpretation. It implies "easily" or "readily" to me. In this case, the plant could be extinct or a least nigh on impossible to find. I think we need to be more flexible on this. The use of the image is not setting a precedent. That was already set years ago. (As an aside, I have emailed Dr Onur Koyuncu, (a coauthor of the original paper) and asked for a free photograph. As the paper was published ten years ago, we cannot be sure if this researcher is still active and responding to emails). Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As it says in WP:NFC#UUI, it is generally considered possible to create free images of living people and extant buildings, and we don't care too much that it may be difficult. I tend to agree with JM that it is preferable to wait for a free image of an extant species than to go the easy way of taking a random non-iconic non-free image, as doing so makes it harder to accomplish our free content mission. If the article can pass FA without being illustrated, I don't see a big problem, especially if images can be linked to prominently. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Thanks you for removing the images; I have struck my oppose, and will aim to find time to look through the article properly. You may have missed it in the midst of the discssion above, but I do encourage you to think on Kusma's suggestion above: 'Is there a (non-free) image on some non copyright violating webpage that can be linked to with {{External media}}?' I've found that useful in a number of articles; I believe it is in use in other FAs, but I'm not certain. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga[edit]

  • Hello I'll be doing a non-expert prose review
  • Can see both points of view on images so I'm neutral on that issue.
  • "The petals are bright yellow, like most species of Hypericum," link hypericum on first mention in body and lead, as well as in infobox
    • Linked in the lede, already linked in the infobox
      I'd still like it linked first time in body, that for me at least is standard practice Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, linked at the first mention of the genus in the description section
  • "and grow in a pentagon of five on each flower" - link pentagon? and don't think you need "of five" since pentagon already means that
    • Changed to "pentagon shape"
  • if you are linking to taxonomist and ecologist, then I'd suggest linking botanist as well
    • Good call
  • re "When compared to Hypericum minutum and H. huber-morathii, Hypericum sechmenii has differences in its leaves, flowers, and pollen grains. Its leaves are adjacent on one another and overlap, while the leaves of H. minutum and H. huber-morathii" - is there a pattern to when you use Hypericum and when you use H.?
    • I use the full name the first time a species is mentioned, and on the first mention of a species in Hypericum in a paragraph. Good catch here, this doesn't follow that logic but I think I've taken care of it
      thanks for the explanation, I don't think the lead follows this logic with "The most closely related of these are Hypericum huber-morathii, H. minutum, and H. thymopsis."? Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, fixed there and in one other spot
  • re "The area of distribution on Arayit Mountain is estimated to be 2 square kilometres (km2). The area of the Kaymaz to Sivrihisar locality is estimated to be smaller.[1]" then how can we say "It is estimated that there are fewer than 250 members of the species within an area smaller than 10 km2", since the way I'm reading it 2 km2 plus less than 2km2 doesnt equal 10 km2
    • My understanding of the source is that the two localities given are assumed not to be the only places the plant grows. It seems that the 10km2 figure is an extrapolation of the actually found localities - with are stated to be separate and fragmented. However, this is not explicitly stated in either survey of the species, and it would be venturing into my own original research to make assumptions like that.
      ok. hmm .. then "Hypericum sechmenii has a known distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" in the lead perhaps should be "Hypericum sechmenii has an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres" and in the body "The species is rare, with an estimated 250 surviving plants of the species in an area smaller than 10 km2" should be written since it seems to present 10 km2 as fact. Difficult I know because you have said "estimated" but I read that as applying to the number of pplants and not necessarily the area
      • Done as suggested in the lede, changed to "in an area assumed to be less than 10km2" in the body. If you have a more elegant solution please, by all means feel free to change as you see fit
  • "Ocak and Koyuncu gave the species the specific epithet" - can give Koyuncu's full name on first mention
    • Was given once in lede, have also added first time in body
  • perennial herb can be linked on first mention in body
    • Done
  • in the lead you say it is a "rare species", but don't explicitly say that in body?
    • I have rewritten the first sentence of the Conservation section to include this verbiage
  • that's it from me, cool we know so much about a very rare plant. Mujinga (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for your comments, I have responded to each point as noted. Fritzmann (message me) 14:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Fritzmann I've added some nitpicky replies and after resolving them will be happy to support on prose Mujinga (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mujinga: I hope I have adequately responded, if you see anything else I am happy to continue editing. Fritzmann (message me) 19:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Nice work, happy to support on prose Mujinga (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SilverTiger12[edit]

An interesting article about a rare plant. I don't have many comments.

  • The two Fair Use images are, in my opinion, acceptable given the complete lack of free images and the extreme rarity of the plant.
  • In the lede, I suggest adding a "the" to and Norman Robson later placed H. sechmenii into the section Adenosepalum.
    • Agreed, done
  • You may also want to split the first paragraph of the lede into two paragraphs right after the sentence quoted above.
    • Split
  • Please use the {{Convert}} template for measurements, excepting where the measurements are in micrometers.
    • I think I've gotten all of them
  • Hypericum sechmenii is a flowering perennial herb that grows in dense clusters of upright stems typically 3–6 cm tall,[2] sometimes up to 8 cm tall.
    • Done
  • Can you change the one instance where millimeters is used (the length of the sepals) to use centimeter instead for consistency?
    • Yes, thanks for spotting that one
  • Why are there 3 subsections listed? None of them are mentioned in the paragraphs above.
  • Also, if there is one, please add a cladogram of the clade.
    • To answer the above two comments: I have not been able to find a clade because Robson added the species to its subgeneric classification in a brief addendum without a ton of detail. As such, I included the nesting diagram in the article for a substitute; the other three subsections are just the other subsections inside sect. Adneosepalum besides the Huber-Morathii group. If you think they should be removed I don't have any problem with that.
      • Yes, please remove the other three subsections as their inclusion here is just confusing. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really no more recent update on the species' conservation status more recent than 2013?
    • Nope. The optimist in me hopes that no one has bothered to go find it again, while the pessimist in me suspects that the species may be extinct by now.
  • The citations all seem to be in order, and Earwig didn't find any copyvio.

And that's all. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have made changes as noted in my responses. Fritzmann (message me) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "an estimated distribution of less than 10 square kilometres (3.9 square miles), with fewer than 250 living plants." In context, is "living" not redundant.
    • Removed
  • "The pale glands contain and excrete essential oil compounds". Is it known what they are essential for?
    • "essential oil" is a type of oil category, I think I have it linked
And do they serve any function, ie is it known if they benefit the leaf or the plant in any way?
In some species of St Johnswort yes, in others their purpose is not known - but it is not a well studied part of their anatomy. I've not found anything that gives their function for this particular plant
  • "grow in a pentagon shape on each flower". Are the petals pentagon shaped, or are they arranged in pentagons?
    • This passage has given me quite a bit of trouble. I have changed to "pentagonal arrangement" to hopefully make it more clear
Much clearer, but it does leave the question: What shape are the petals?
Strangely, neither the original authors nor Robson give the petal shape. Almost every other species I've written about has at least a brief mention of this, but not this one. Only the glands are described. One of the peculiarities of botany is that sometimes details are missed, I suppose, seemingly at random.
  • "They are 0.4–0.7 cm (0.16–0.28 in)". Adding 'wide' or 'across' may aid clarity.
    • Added "long", thanks
  • "In its original description". Optional: perhaps mention when that was. (I am aware that its date of discovery is mentioned at the start of the following section and the description date a little later.)
    • I think I'll leave the chronology for the taxonomy section, if it's all the same to you
  • "The holotype of the species was first collected in that same year". Is "first" needed? It suggests that the holotype has been collected several times.
    • Yes, first is redundant as there is only one holotype per species
  • "Three years later, in December 2009, the species was formally described in the journal Annales Botanici Fennici." It is usual to say who it was described by.
    • Moved the authors' names forward
  • "Flora of Turkey endemic species registry in 2011". I am puzzled by the upper-case F.
    • "Flora of Turkey" is the name of the publication - I have italicized to note this
  • "early molecular phylogenetics". What does "early" mean in this context?
    • I wanted to indicate that the methods used were in their infancy at the time and not particularly accurate, but that is not relevant to the overall article and may veer into OR. I have struck the "early"
I had thought so. You could say something like 'and the relatively primitive molecular phylogenetics of the day' or 'and an early use of Molecular phylogenetic analysis', but I like it how it is.
"early applications" is what I went with
  • Elevations given in imperial measurements use feet, could you tweak the two conversion templates in "Distribution and habitat".
    • Done
  • Why is the note for Isotype "a 1" rather than just '1' (or 'n 1' or 'note 1')?
    • Inexperience and sloppiness with ref groups, thank you for the keen eye
Ah you gave me a laugh there. You may appreciate WP:GOG1.

What a splendid and well written little article. Can we have more like this please? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to bring more species articles to FAC, especially others from Hypericum. I hope they don't become droll; I quite enjoy writing them. Fritzmann (message me) 22:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I look forward to them.
A couple of thoughts above, which I am happy to continue discussing, but they are not of sufficient weight to prevent me supporting this gem of an article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for helping make this process a most enjoyable one. The essay definitely struck home with me, it seems like the iceberg goes ever deeper with Wikipedia.

AK[edit]

  • Bit late here, so the article's more or less ready to go, but I have a few minor comments.
  • "which grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" you mention in the body that this isn't always the case, so maybe change to "usually grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimetres" instead?
    • Good call
  • "fewer than 250 plants" ends the sentence a bit abruptly, especially since the previous clause was talking about distribution. I think "fewer than 250 surviving plants" might be better.
    • Good call, that is the verbiage I use in the conservation section as well
  • "O.Koyuncu" is the lack of a space intentional?
    • Yes, that is his standard author abbreviation
  • "the journal" maybe expand to "scientific journal"?
    • I think scientific is implied, readers can get more details at the link
  • "However, Hypericum...unique species" This sentence is kinda redundant; we discuss the discovery of the species in the paragraph right above this one, so this seems a bit like overkill.
    • I would prefer to keep it, as there are very few species not included in the original monograph, but the reason is not because it was missed (which happened with a few other species) but because it was not described yet.
  • Would bullet points for the list of species in the group look nicer?
    • This is pretty standard style for non-cladogram layouts of taxa
  • That's all I got. On the subject of the images, I do feel like we should not have fair-use images of extant species, even if they are very rare; it just doesn't seem to meet the strict requirements we have for NFCC. AryKun (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments Arykun, I'm excited to have this rack up some points in the TOL contest! Fritzmann (message me) 14:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great work! AryKun (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim O'Doherty[edit]

Some nitpicks with ref ordering: a few instances of [3][2] when it should be [2][3] and one instance of [8][2] for [2][8]. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not necessarily though. In my articles, for example, I usually place the most important source (which covers most of the previous text) first. I heard that other editors place the refs in the order in which the information appers in the previous text. So I guess it is up to the author how to do it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen other FACs (like this one) where reviewers ask that they are. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that such a requirement can be quite annoying for authors, does not provide any benefit to readers, and also is not suggested by any policy or guideline as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what Fritzmann says. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really matters; feel free to change the reference order if you would like. Fritzmann (message me) 21:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no requirement on a specific ordering of references (see WP:CITEORDER). FrB.TG (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since my only nitpick crashed and burned, support. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta[edit]

A few more nitpicks for your consideration. Esculenta (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • is it "St John's wort family" as in the article text or "St. John's wort family" as given in the family article?
    • Sources use both, my understanding is that St. John's wort is more common in the US, while St John's wort is more common globally. Since this species is cosmopolitan, I have elected for the global usage.
  • is the article supposed to be in BE (centimetres, kilometres) or AE? (honor, color, theorized, specialized)?
    • I write in AE, but I'm not sure how to make the convert template do that as well; this was the default.
      • add "|sp=us" to the convert template. Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hypericum sechmenii is a perennial herb which usually grows" which->that
    • Done
  • if the term "flower" is to be linked (a low-value link, imo), then why not "petal" and "stem"?
    • Removed flower link
  • "has a very thick cuticle" I've found the use of "very" to be a mostly useless intensifier; I don't think the sentence loses anything without it.
    • Done
  • what benefit is there to linking a plain English term "hairless" to its jargon counterpart (glabrous)? The unlinked term as written is already understood by both laypeople and advanced readers. I noticed that later "net-like pattern" isn't linked in the same way to "reticulate" (not that it needs to be, just pointing out the inconsistency)
    • Yes, it can be understood as hairless - but it would be improper to say that plants have hair in the strictest sense. I prefer to remove ambiguity and link to the jargon term used in the description, which doesn't do any harm.
    • If we were to have an article that added additional context to the term, like there is for glabrousness, I probably would link it. As it stands, there is only a redirect into a disambiguation page into a section link to "leaf venation", which I don't think is particularly intuitive.
  • "They are roughly 0.2–0.5 cm (0.079–0.197 in) long" ensure that the precision of the input matches that of the output. There are some other examples throughout the text (which are more difficult to justify truncating); have you considered using fractional outputs instead? e.g., 0.2–0.5 cm (1⁄16–3⁄16 in)
    • I have changed the presentation of measurements back and forth quite a bit by now; I will just truncate to maintain significant figures.
  • "contain and excrete essential oil compounds" construction sounds odd, I suggest just "essential oils"
    • Done
  • maybe link gas exchange, vein, midrib
    • Done
  • short-form species names in subsection "Similar species" are missing non-breaking spaces or nowrap templates
    • Done there and elsewhere
      • Seem to have lost a bunch of italicization. Esculenta (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea why it did that, but it appears a good Samaritan has come along to fix my sloppiness. Fritzmann (message me) 21:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • link/gloss palisade tissue
    • Done
  • "Huber-morathii Group" capitalise 2nd name?
    • Another weird thing no one can seem to decide. Is it the Hypericum huber-morathii Group, the Huber-Morathii Group, or the Huber-morathii Group? Who knows. I've standardized to Huber-morathii group, since the species name does not have capitalization after the hyphen
      • What does morathii refer to? If it's someone's name, it would make sense to capitalize it. Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like "Huber-morathii" is in reference to a guy named "Huber-Morath", so yeah I agree it should be "Huber-Morathii" Fritzmann (message me) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "H. sechmenii has two adaptations of the genus Hypericum which deter grazing" which -> that
    • Done
  • the text mention that some cells contain druse crystals. This seemed odd to me that this would occur intracellularly (isn't the cell size then self-limiting? doesn't it mess up with cellular electrolyte balance, etc.), so I went to the source to check, and saw prose like "Some hypodermal cells are includes druse crystals" so I'm reluctant to use this as confirmation; the images of the transverse leaf section and stem section don't really clarify the intracellularity or extracellularity of druse crystals, and our own article on druse (botany) doesn't commit either way. Can you provide clarity?
    • I'm not sure what the question is, are you asking whether the druse crystals are present inside the cells or in the extracellular space? My understanding is that druses by their nature contained within a cell, but I could very well be wrong. The prose of much of that article is not particularly stellar (the authors are Turkish, and likely writing in their second language), but they say elsewhere that "Some peridermal cells also include druse crytals", which seems pretty clear that the druse crystals are inside the cell.
      • Yeah I checked another source and it seems they are shuttled to vacuoles, where they accumulate. Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • it might be interesting to mention somewhere that the red glands of Hypericum (like this species has), contain compounds called naphthodianthrones (of course gloss what this means if you do), and that these red glands have been associated, in some folklores, with "magical protective powers"? (Crockett & Robson 2011)
    • Hmm, I'm hesitant to do this. While the red glands are characteristic of the genus, it is entirely likely that this species has lost that characteristic. Maybe I'm missing it, but a re-skim of the source descriptions don't mention red glands - only amber ones. These could be the same, and could contain naphthodianthrones, or they may have different compounds. That would also be quite interesting, but the research has unfortunately not be done.
      • Okay, perhaps I'm confused because this article first calls them "black glands" but then in the next sentence calls them "dark glands contain red-staining phenolic compounds (anthraquinone derivatives)", which I guess I incorrectly assumed was equivalent to "red glands". Esculenta (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed all mentions of "dark glands" to "black glands" to reduce confusion. My understanding is that they look black, but if you were to crush them with your fingers your hand would get stained red. In another point, the "anthraquinone derivative" is equivalent to "naphthodianthrones". It is just more clear because we have an article on anthraquinones and they are also the more well-known kind of compound. Fritzmann (message me) 21:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • one source I saw (Akçi̇n et al. 2016, "Anatomical Properties of Medicinal Plant Hypericum orientale L.", Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 10 (2): 16-20) says that in the Hypericaceae, there are species with either bifacial or ecvifacial leaves, and Hypericum sechmenii is the latter. What does this mean and should it be in the article?
    • I believe "ecvifacial" is a misspelling or corruption of "equifacial". This refers to the arrangement of the stomata, i.e. on both sides of the leaf equally, instead of bifacial where they are all or almost all on the underside of the leaf. I believe this is adequately covered in the last paragraph of the vegetative structures section.
Esculenta, should be done except for where noted. Fritzmann (message me) 20:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta, was there anything else that you saw? Some very astute observations so far, I appreciate that. Fritzmann (message me) 23:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got – good luck! Esculenta (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

I like plants. Will endeavor to do a spotcheck. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I do, any source that is longer than ~10 pages should really have broken up citation to closer page rages for verifiability purposes. Consider using {{Sfn}} or {{rp}} to do so. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the article to sfn format per FAC. I hope this improves the reference quality, but a check of the change for minor errors would be appreciated. Let me know if there are any issues that arise during the spotcheck. Fritzmann (message me) 18:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is more than one page you need pp, not p. Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. See this sample edit [2]
  • The Bibliography should be in alphabetical order. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • you probably want to get all citations in the bibliography for consistency. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put everything in the bibliography that has pages, everything else is just websites. Not sure how I would cite those. I hope everything is in order now, I admit I am not used to using sfn. Fritzmann (message me) 12:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Climate of Turkey" should be ordered by its author - Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü - rather than its title. Eddie, apologies for repeatedly interrupting your source review, I shall stop now. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked three individual citations, which I have left below. However, I think I will have to bow out with my apologies. I can't parse the source material. Sentences like "seed linear foveolate to subscalariform" mean nothing to me. I don't feel that I can adequately assess whether the source material has been accurately reflected on the article page, unfortunately. Really sorry. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • 3a Not seeing this in the source, 3g not seeing "The holotype of the species was collected at about 1,800 m (5,900 ft)" in the source
  • 3a: looks like refs 2 and 3 got swapped when I changed to sfn. The Ocak paper contains the upper limit estimations; I have swapped them back
  • 3g: I am pretty sure this arose from first writing that the general elevation of the species was around 1800 m, and later adding the exact range of the species without removing the previous generalization. I have removed the first clause
  • 8 I don't think p. 591 is the correct page number for these citations.
  • Changed 8a to p. 592 and 8b to p. 593

Source review and spot-check[edit]

Is Bizimbit Kiler (www.bizimbitkiler.org.tr) a reliable source? It's a bit underrepresented online. Location tags are applied inconsistently. Otherwise, it seems like the sources are reliable save as noted below and mostly consistently formatted, making allowances for certain inconsistencies in which information is available. I presume that all the sources here have been either used or ruled out?

On the spotcheck, reviewing this version:

    • My understanding of Bizimbit is that it is an online mirror of a paper publication, much like Hypericum MySpecies. In this case, it mirrors the content of a vascular plants list from a Turkish botanical garden's academic publication, which I have no reason to suspect of unreliability.
    • All of the sources on google scholar which are not used are only passing mentions of the species. I am confident I've fully scoured anything available online for actual information.
  • 1 I see nothing on the page saying that it is five leaves per flower or that it is typical for the genus.
    • The five petals statement was based on the image from the previous page, which the GAN reviewer suggested I use since none of the sources explicitly say it. I have corrected the sfn directions
    • I have changed the statement about most species of Hypericum to one about the type species of the genus
  • 2 I don't think the source implies that bracts lack the amber or black lines, or that the glands are black. "Little research has been conducted regarding the ecology of Hypericum sechmenii and its relationship with its environment." likewise seems unsupported.
    • The source states that the leaves and sepals have glands, and describes them in detail. I believe it is reasonable to assume that the omission of such a description for the bracts means that they do not have the lines.
    • I'm not sure to which reference of the black glands you are referring
      • "On the edges of the petals there are a few black glands in addition to the amber-colored ones" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "petals... marginal glands black, few" from the Hypericum MySpecies source
  • 4 OK if we don't mind the image interpretation.
  • 5 OK but I note that the definition of cuticula and xylem is not in the source.
  • 6 I don't think "oblong" should be transcribed as "oval". As with above, the definition of cambium, suberin and druse crystal isn't in the source.
    • I have changed oval back to oblong
  • 7 The page number does not add up; also MDPI from what I know is a so-so publisher; are the authors well-known and/or the paper frequently cited?
    • The publishing website only gives the first page of the paper as 591, so I am unsure of how to give a more specific notation
      • Looks like you may want to add this arithmetically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to 597, which has the specific claim about herbivory deterrance
    • The primary author has over 40 papers published on the biomineralization process, so she definitely isn't unknown. The paper looks like it has been cited 14 times; I have no idea if that is frequent or not
  • 8 I don't think that this page really supports most of the text.
    • Corrected per the previous review
  • 9 This is talking about Hypericum perforatum?
    • Yes, the glands should contain common chemical categories throughout the genus; as the type species H. perforatum is the most evident reference
      • Then the article should note it's talking about a different species. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noted
  • 10 The definition of stomata is not in the source. And I don't see the vein thing either.
    • Leaving the definition for the end, but I have no idea where the vein statement came from. I've re-read the references and can't find it either, thank you for the good eye.
  • 11 I don't think this says why the adaptations arose, at least not on this page.
    • I'm not seeing what this is referring to?
      • "Both species have similar adaptations in their stomata that make them able to thrive in dry climates, and both have stomata on the upper and lower sides of their leaves" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • "presence of amphistomatic leaves and xeromorphic stomata in H. sechmenii are the same features as for those in H. thymopsis" (xeromorphic means an adaptation or morphological feature that retains water and allows species to survive in dry habitats)
  • 12 This absolutely does not back the flower distinctions, at least not on this page.
    • Also includes the comparison table on the previous page, made that change to denote
  • 13 Is Günüzü=Günyüzü? Also, Atila Ocak is not mentioned here.
    • Yes to the first point; Ocak is mentioned as the collector in his 2009 paper, I have addended it to the sentence
  • 14 Where is the etymology stated.
    • Bizimbit gives "secmen kantaronu". Kantaronu is the Turkish common name for Hypericum/St John's wort
  • 17 OK
  • 18 Not sure what this source adds.
    • I believe POWO is a more recognizable source for botanical experts who may be dubious of Bizimbit
  • 20 Is HUB=Hacettepe University?
    • Yes
  • 21 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 24 Seems like this is on the previous page.
    • Page 70 also discusses the Irano-Turanian element, but I have expanded it to a range of 69-70
  • 25 OK
One thing I notice that a number of jargon terms (which I've listed above) used in the source have been explained in the article, without the explanation being in the source. Not relevant to the spotcheck, but worth noting, some content seems to duplicate itself, e.g the five petaled flowers thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for doing this. In your final comment, is there a hiccup between "without the" and "Not relevant"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've fixed that now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the thorough source review. I hope I have adequately responded. The one point I will push back on is the explanation for the jargon terms. I believe it is necessary, and that because their meanings are unambiguous the definition should not need a source. To do so would be counterproductive and make writing these articles to a high standard even more difficult, perhaps prohibitively so. I give the reader both a simple explanation, and the original, so if they are dubious of my explanation they can look up the jargon term (or click through to its wiki article) on their own. Fritzmann (message me) 00:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably add some citations for the jargon terms too. See for example how Gargaud 2011 is used on TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Individual points all responded to. If there is consensus that sources are needed for every jargon term, I will endeavor to include them but that might take a little while. Fritzmann (message me) 13:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion regarding the explanations of the jargon terms: If these definitions are uncontroversial, I think that no citation is needed. These should fall into "the sky is blue" kind of statements according to WP:CITEKILL, and providing citations for them adds clutter without much benefit. Most of the FAs I wrote or reviewed do not provide such citations, including most of our dinosaur FAs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and Gog the Mild, were there any other sourcing concerns that I can address at this point? Fritzmann (message me) 20:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd be wary of passing an article when a spotcheck shows this many issues, but this "spotcheck" ended up being roughly 90% of the article. Undecided whether we should worry about the remaining 10%. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for performing the spot-checks. Normally, when spot-checks reveal this many issues, I like to ensure that the nominator goes through the entirety of sources again and rechecks everything. As and when that is done, further spot-checks (possibly by you if you feel inclined or another reviewer) should be done to make sure everything is in the clear. FrB.TG (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, I have gone through with a fine comb again that has hopefully removed any lingering ambiguity or inconsistencies. I will note that most of the issues arose from a hasty transition between reference styles during this FAC, as opposed to being present beforehand. That's certainly an error on my part (and a lesson learned for my next time at FAC), but I don't think it's indicative of the overall quality of the article. Out of all of Jo-Jo's points, it seems to me like a maximum of four could be interpreted as actual source-text integrity issues (and minor ones at that) — the rest all just required clarification within this review or were those page-related issues that also arose during this review. Fritzmann (message me) 14:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to hint at the alternative: For this reason, I like to use the {{rp}} templates rather than {{Sfn}} for page numbers, as these are much easier to handle and much more flexible. It's a personal preference, but rp-templates are one way to save a lot of headaches. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I had before the FAC, but was advised to remove it because it made the text look unwieldy and wasn't necessary for short articles like Ocak 2009. I guess the lesson is to know what is required beforehand and what is preference-based, and to stick to one's guns on the latter issues. Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Both templates are accepted, including at FAC, and there is no rule or guideline that one should be preferred over the other. It is entirely up to you. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't agree that the source-text inconsistencies were "minor", but since they are no longer there this can be considered a pass. Don't care whether to use sfn or rp, that's up to others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hypericum_sechmenii/archive1&oldid=1186110007"