Talk:Hypericum decaisneanum

Hypericum decaisneanum is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Fritzmann (message me) at 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Species of flowering plant of the St. John's wort family

Hypericaceae: Plants Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Hypericaceae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant family Hypericaceae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.HypericaceaeWikipedia:WikiProject HypericaceaeTemplate:WikiProject HypericaceaeHypericaceae articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

Africa: Libya

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Libya portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libya (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

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

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Fritzmann2002! Let's get started.

Y Use a secondary source for the synonym in the Speciesbox (eg, POWO) and modify the author citation accordingly. Set synonym references to the POWO page for the species.
Y POWO citation at end of Authority parameter in Speciesbox.
Y Wikilink the four author abbreviations in the Speciesbox.

More coming. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also carried over some of the changes from H. formosissimum in preparation. Fritzmann (message me) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking! Here's a bit more for now.

Y in speciesbox, your ref for the synonym points to the powo page for Hypericum taubertii. While it's true that page tells us it is a synonym of Hypericum decaisneanum, it does not guarantee that it is the only synonym. So you should cite the powo page for Hypericum decaisneanum here.
Y The authority for Hypericum taubertii needs to have the "ex Coss." attached.
Each of the footnotes needs a citation because they stand alone. I think I forgot that in the previous GA!

It's looking good. Do those things, and then I'll compare article to sources, as well as think about anything else that you might need to include.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson, getting an error when trying to include references in the footnotes. If it's any help, all of the citations are directly after the notes. Fritzmann (message me) 17:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've vaguely remember that happening to me when I first tried it. I will get back with you on how this works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try something like this?

{{Efn|group=n|Outside range {{Nowrap|10 to 38}}{{Sfnp|Brouillet|Semple|Allen|Chambers|2006}}}}

This works well. I have separate Notes section and Citations section.

==Notes==
{{Notelist |group=n}}

==Citations==
{{Reflist|20em}}

and because my preference is shortened footnotes, I keep a separate References section as well.

==References==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
{{Refend}}

There might be a problem with embedding a list defined reference within a footnote. If that's not working, try a shortened footnote like I have shown here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: