Talk:Hypericum huber-morathii

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Distribution of Hypericum huber-morathii.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Hello, I will be reviewing this article assigned by WP:GARC. I will get to this ASAP and plan to finish the review within 7 days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• I have done a check of certain items of the GA criteria, outstanding issues are in bold. I should have my spot check and prose review complete within 48 hours. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay. I have completed the and spot-check, started the prose review feel free to push back if you disagree with any of my comments. I should have it all completed ASAP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  No worries; I've responded to the review thus far, just drop me a ping when the rest is done and I'll finish up any needed changes. Fritzmann (message me) 11:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Fritzmann, I have finished the review. I ticked off the image section of the GA criteria, finished the prose review, and have left some comments below for you to action. I have also left additional comments for the reference section. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Lede section

   Y Wikilink "perennial herb" and "Hypericum".

   Etymology section

   Y write the Turkish translation, özge kantaron, with {{Lang}}.

   Y Unbolden "özge kantaron"

   Description section

   Y attacked → attached

   Y "wide oval," remove comma

   Y on the leaf → of the leaf

   Y "oblong," remove comma

   Y The sepals are around 0.25 cm long and 1.5 cm wide, will all be the same size on each flower, and overlap one another. rewrite for easier reading. Perhaps: "The sepals are approximately 0.25 cm long and 1.5 cm wide. They are all the same size on each flower and overlap each other."

   Distribution, habitat, and ecology section

   Y listed the species a → listed the species as a

   Y wikilink "Division" (Division (horticulture))

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Y There are a few names of authors, publishers, websites, etc. that aren't wikilinked where an article exists (eg. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, JSTOR, Robson, Norman (in the bibliography section)). I am not sure if it's required but it would make the reference section consistent.

   Y There are a few more names in the reference section that could be wikilinked. Also write out the full name of WCMC (and wikilink).

   I've linked all publishers and journals with articles and think that should be sufficient. This isn't one of the GA criteria to my knowledge

   Y Wrap the bibliography section within the {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Spot check complete, no signs of original research, all information is citing with reliable sources and there aren't any copyright violations.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issues

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   No issues

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Y Infobox image seems to be licensed under CC0-1.0 on the Natual History Museum website but is listed on commons as cc-by-sa-4.0.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Y Per MOS:ALT and for accessibility, the image in the infobox should have the image_alt parameter and perhaps (but not required) the image_caption parameter.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

GMH Melbourne, I believe I've addressed everything. Any other concerns with the article? Thank you for a great review using the new circle concept! Fritzmann (message me) 02:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.