Jump to content

Talk:Hypericum × inodorum/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Couple duplinks found using the tool; such a short article doesn't really need them.
  • Removed, except for one to Androsaemum since I put the duplink in a note
  • The scientific name should be italicized in ref titles.
  • Fixed
  • Maybe include the list of synonyms Robson has in the relevant infobox field?
  • Added
  • Is Aitan 1789 really a good ref to source the species being "commonly" called something? A source that old would only document a historical name, not a common one. The later Robson ref is better for this imo.
  • Clarify it has "historically" been called such
  • "In his description,...stinking tutsan." Isn't this entirely OR? It's probable, but no source has said this, and the cite only supports H. hircinum being called stinking tutsan.
  • I've changed it to a note that just says that, with no commentary on the description. Is that alright?
  • I wouldn't say that "goat-like" is equivalent to "pungent"; goats of course do smell pungent, but that's OR.
  • Changed just to "goat-like"
  • I'd mention that smell isn't always a clear differentiator between the two species and that some inodorum can also have a strong smell.
  • Mentioned
  • "This name...in 1821." Not in Robson.
  • "This name" was meant to refer to H. elatum, not tall St John's wort. I've made that more clear
  • Ref 10 should also include page 306, not just 305.
  • Done
  • "has a spread of 0.9–1.5 m" I couldn't find this bit in Robson.
  • That's because it is from the NC site also referenced there
  • "from about 3–23 flowers" "About" is either redundant or should be before 23 (ie from 3 to about 23).
  • Reworded. Sometimes there are more than 23 or less than 3
  • No mentioning the fact that seeds are winged?
  • Added
  • The Description is a bit closely paraphrased from Robson as a whole, but I think it's okay when most of it's just basic descriptions of plant morphology where it's impossible to be very creative.
  • Always a struggle when there's only one modern description
  • The habitat that Robson mentions (damp or shaded areas in lowlands) is worth adding to ecology imo.
  • Added with a quote, not really sure how I could rewrite it lol
  • "Its "brilliant" berries are the most frequently praised characteristic" Not supported by cite at all.
  • I've removed, think I had another ref there that got taken out when trimming but the clause was missed
  • "berries are 1.8 cm long" Robson says 1.6–1.7.
  • Fixed
  • "go from white" Also doesn't mention white. This seems to be from the Missouri ref.
  • I've duped the ref
  • There's a couple refs to websites that aren't perhaps the highest-quality RS, but they seem to be gardening focussed and the only sources for commercial cultivars, so I think it's okay for GA. However, I would like to know why www.uksouthwest.net is reliable; I can't find any organization behind it, and the contact page only lists a John Crossley who I can't find any information on.
  • Replaced it with the website of a UK nature charity, it is made up of naturalists and wildlife experts. I think it should serve better.
  • The North Carolina Toolbox ref lists a couple more cultivars, any reason for leaving those out?
  • There are an absolute crapload of cultivars for this hybrid. I picked ones to list that would cover the different parts of the plant that are selected for: leaves, stems, berries, and disease resistance.
  • Wholeheartedly agree, added that one
  • Spot-checks: I spot-checked most of the sources and they usually supported claims made; cases of discrepancies are individually noted above.
  • A couple of the websites seem like the ones whose like inevitably break down after a couple years; I'd recommend adding archive links using the bot.
  • Images are fine.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
@AryKun: thank you very much for the review, I believe I've addressed everything. Are there any other changes that can be made? Fritzmann (message me) 13:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Made a couple more tweaks to the lead to remove claims that are no longer in the body; will pass now. AryKun (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]