Talk:Hypericum × inodorum/GA1

GA Review

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

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

• 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.

• I checked on Google Scholar and there seem to be a lot of physiological and chemical studies that include the nothospecies. Most of them are a bit too niche for GA, but at least this one about a fungal pathogen should be added.

• 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)

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)