| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hypericum olympicum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | A fact from Hypericum olympicum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 July 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article refers to a taxon that doesn't have its type locality listed. If you can, please provide it. |
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Hypericum olympicum
( )
Cultivated Hypericum olympicum flower in Poland
- ... that while Hypericum olympicum (pictured) has antidepressive, antioxidizing, and antibacterial properties, it is only used as a garden plant?
ALT1:... that the 'Citrinum' cultivar of Hypericum olympicum (pictured) was named for its leaves' similarity to lemons?ALT2:... that Hypericum olympicum (pictured) was awarded the Award of Garden Merit despite being toxic to dogs, cats, and horses?ALT3:... that Hypericum olympicum (pictured) was awarded the Award of Garden Merit under an incorrect name and despite being toxic to dogs, cats, and horses?
- Updated Hook: ... that while Hypericum olympicum (pictured) has antidepressive, antioxidizing, and antibacterial properties, it is currently only cultivated as an ornamental plant?
- Comment: I've given a few different possible hooks for this article, and while I like the first one the best, the third and fourth have more concrete information to them. I'll leave it to the reviewer to decide which one (if any) would be most appropriate for a DYK.
- Reviewed: Peter Badcoe
5x expanded by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC).
Article is eligible, having been expanded 5x recently enough. Not preferable that you state in the article "While H. olympicum extracts are not currently used as antibacterials." It would be better if you used an absolute timescale rather than a relative one (i.e. "As of 2019,...") Also, not currently meeting requirements of "at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote", particularly relating to description section. Plagiarism check completed and no likely plagiarism. All is in order with the image licensing and requirements, and QPQ complete. I like the first hook best, though I wonder if it would be better to say "only used as an ornamental plant" to drive home that it is "just for show". Enwebb (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed the timescale by adding the year, think that part is taken care of. As for the references, it looks like that is fine now too, as the description is all from the same reference as it is a simplification of N. Robson's description of the plant. I altered the hook to include that it is just an ornamental, feel free to edit it yourself if you think the wording still sounds a little funny. Thanks for the review, anything else that I missed that still needs to be done? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fritzmann2002, how about just one more citation for the text at #Cultivars? Then good to go. Enwebb (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Enwebb, all done Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
thanks, all good now. Enwebb (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Enwebb, all done Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fritzmann2002, how about just one more citation for the text at #Cultivars? Then good to go. Enwebb (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- I fixed the timescale by adding the year, think that part is taken care of. As for the references, it looks like that is fine now too, as the description is all from the same reference as it is a simplification of N. Robson's description of the plant. I altered the hook to include that it is just an ornamental, feel free to edit it yourself if you think the wording still sounds a little funny. Thanks for the review, anything else that I missed that still needs to be done? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 18:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
