# Talk:Hypericum formosissimum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum formosissimum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 19:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 03:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)


### Discussion
If you aren't already, I encourage you to study, question, follow, and defend (during reviews) the Taxon template at the WikiProject Plants (Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template). 
Lead

In the Lead, Wikilink "species", "petal"s, "rare" (link to "rare species"), "habitat", "genus", "first described" (link to "Species description"), "section".
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Still needs link for "genus" – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"a pillow-like shape"? What does this mean? Is there a botanical term to use here?
"pulviniform", which directly translates to pillow-like
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Before the first use of Takhtajan's name, say "Soviet-Armenian botanist".
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Same with Robson, say "English botanist".
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
When it says, "Robson placed the species in a Hypericum huber-morathii group within Adenosepalum alongside several related species", does that mean Robson placed it within the group in the section Adenosepalum? If so, add "the section" there.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Maybe instead of saying "in a Hypericum huber-morathii group", change it to "a group of species most closely aligned with  Hypericum huber-morathii". My reasoning is that we want to link to the species (if it's not done now, someone else will do it later), but we don't want to give the impression that following the link will explain the group. So until there is an article on this group, or an independent redirect to something in another article, doing it this different way might avoid the ambiguity.
The H. huber-morathii article does explain the group a bit more, and the name "Hypericum huber-morathii group" is what is used in all of the cited literature
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I think we're fine to go ahead and Wikilink the three countries. Continents, no. Countries, yes, especially these smaller European countries. Do that on first use in the body as well.
Consensus is that country-level articles should not be linked
Can you refer me to the consensus? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
MOS:OVERLINK says countries are generally not linked
Facepalm. I knew this. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
We may change the Lead a bit more before we're finished.
Infobox

Needs a distribution map (| range_map =, | range_map_alt =, | range_map_caption =). At the end of the range_map_caption parameter, add a citation (or multiple) for where the information was acquired for the distribution map.
I think any distribution map would do more harm than good; POWO only gives country-level distribution, which would make it look far more widespread than it actually is. Trying to infer distribution from the available text would also probably be misleading, and I have gotten in trouble with that before. I think the locator map that shows Areni is a sufficient geographic locator for the area of the species
Well, okay for now... Let me think on that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
--------- still for E to follow-up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Botanical binomials do not include the year.
My inner desire for them to do so sometimes erroneously pops out
That made me cackle. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
At the end of the Authority parameter, tag on a citation (| authority = [[Armen Takhtajan|Takht.]]<<citation>>).
This is verifiable by the citations in the text
This is true, but... [I'll get back to you on the rest of the sentence in a bit.] – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
See further next under synonyms ref request. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Need to set synonyms reference (| synonyms_ref = <<citation>>).
Also verifiable by citations in the text
This is also true, but... [I'll get back to you on the rest of the sentence in a bit.] – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
...although the Infobox is placed before the body prose, it is not a part of the Lead. Thus, if there is a field for a reference in the Infobox, use it. For Authority, tag the reference to the end. Both of these are probably coming from the same reference – POWO. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Not done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Modify the | image_alt =  so that it includes a description of the photo itself, not just a summary of what is in the photo. For example: Black and white image of Hypericum formosissimum becomes Grayscale image of Hypericum formosissimum with 2 blooms <<describe the blooms>> and 4 leaves <<describe the leaves>>. See WP:ALT. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Done
Great. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
You could add a caption for the image in the Infobox. Not required. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
GENERAL: The first time each scientist is mentioned in the body, briefly describe their origin and field (e.g., American botanist) like was done in the Lead. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Not done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Etymology

Use the {{Lang}} template for "bitlis kantaronu" (assuming this is the Turkish spelling?). This is for screen readers for the visually impaired.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Wikilink [[Anatolia]]n.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I presume the wording "possibly derived from" (or an equivalent meaning) comes from the source? What does the source say? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
It says there are a few theories on the naming, but that this is the most commonly accepted and the one the author gives officially
Change the wording to use something besides "possibly" that better reflects that, please. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)

Description (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Morphology)
Two sources for terminology include Glossary of leaf morphology and Glossary of botanical terms (and for real fun, Glossary of plant morphology, Inflorescence, Plant morphology).

First use of cm and in (and other measurements) should always be spelled out – will need to use {{Convert}} template with parameter |abbr=off. You should probably use the {{Convert}} template in all cases, changing the parameter settings accordingly.
Spelled out
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
For Plants articles, use botanical terms with a Wikilink on them. You can put a short explanation in parentheses.
I've gotten much the opposite input from non-experts, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The casual reader will be able to much more easily parse an article with simplified terms, while an expert can be edified by the links or parentheticals provided.
Hmmm... I think we can find a compromise here. I know of some examples I'll get back to you with. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I found some examples I can refer you to if desired where the following was done. Original text from Description: It lacks small hairs on its surfaces, and grows in a pillow-like shape. Change to include the botanical terms and simplified definitions: It is a glabrous plant, meaning it lacks small hairs on its surfaces, and it grows in a pulviniform, or pillow-like, shape.
I think making these changes would improve the article and bring it to the standard for Criterion 1, particularly "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", by making the prose appealing to general, knowledgeable, and expert readers (this criterion links to WP:TECHNICAL). We should neither shy away from the botanical terms nor make the reader have to look up (or follow a link to) a definition of each one.
I made the first change (glabrous and pulviniform). Please do the rest using them as a guide, and any others in the description that I have not specifically mentioned here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(done) lacks small hairs on its surfaces
(done) grows in a pillow-like shape
(done) Leafstalk [this is two words] – use [[Petiole (botany)|petiole]] (leaf stalk)
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
(done) "have blades that are" – use laminae (blades) and Wikilink to Lamina (leaf) [[Lamina (leaf)|laminae]] (blades)
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
(done) rounded tip and flattened base
I rearranged this a bit. The Glossary of botanical terms defines a "cuneate leaf" as "Triangular, wedge-shaped, stem attaches to point", not flattened. I changed it to expedite. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
(not done, this one doesn't have a botanical term that could be easily inserted) spaced out across the surface of the leaf
It's fine, then. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
(done) Flower cluster – use and link inflorescence and can put flower cluster in parens
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
(done, apex already glossed earlier) no pointed tip
Globose from the source implies a rounded tip, so I removed "no pointed tip". Changed it to use "globose" with elaboration as "roughly spherical". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
[any others]
All done unless notated otherwise
Roots? Taproot or adventitious? Fibrous? Any rhizomes?
Sadly no information on the roots; from the literature it seems like the plant was only observed in situ and not removed for detailed analysis (though this is only a guess based on what morphological characters are given)
Bummer. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Wikilink [[Node (botany)|nodes]]
Good catch
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Petiole characteristics (for help, see Leaf#Characteristics of the petiole)
Again, unfortunately not present in the limited given descriptions. Though I have included a more specific length which I missed instead of just "short"
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
link [[Gland (botany)|glands]]
Another good call
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
What do the amber glands on the leaves excrete? What do the black glands on the leaves excrete?
Not given, only a phytochemical assay in general was conducted; it didn't specify from which glands the compounds were derives
Okay (but it should have, imo! :) ). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Leaves – opposite, alternate, or whorled?
Very oddly also not discussed
Yes, very odd. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Leaf margins – Entire? Toothed? Etc? (see Glossary of leaf morphology)
The description only says "margin plane". I had no idea what to make of this so I excluded it; if you have any ideas I'm absolutely open to them
I'll take a look. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I wonder if that was supposed to mean "flat" or "smooth" which would mean "entire"? Unfortunately, it would be a stretch to presume that since "plane" doesn't make sense in English in our context even though the image does clearly show an entire margin. Oh, well. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Leaves simple, compound, pinnate, etc.? (See Leaf#Divisions of the blade). Veins? Other characteristics?
After re-reading the descriptions, the only bit I could add was a touch more on the venation
Okay, thanks. That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"has between one and five flowers from a single node" Do you mean like a leaf node? And, if not, what would be the better term?
It's a terminal node, so like a leaf node but flowers grow from it. Added "on the end of a stem" to denote this
You can use "terminal node" and elaborate, like I was explaining above. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I've added the word "termina", which is explained by "end of the stem"
"The flowers are 1.0–1.2 cm (0.39–0.47 in) wide and are surrounded by small bract-like structures with black glands." – I don't understand what the part I italicized is supposed to mean. Explain.
They aren't bracts but bracteoles (but the type of bracteole isn't specified). I changed the surrounded "surrounded" to "below" which better indicates their position
You can use "bracteoles" and give a short def as I explained above. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
What do those black glands (in previous bullet point) excrete?
Again, the phytochemical assay didn't delve into the glandular specifics
Okay, again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
How many petals on each flower?
Also incredibly strangely, not mentioned. Hypericum species can have between 4-6, and its sectional placement has bounced around a bit, so I'm hesitant to pull from a higher taxon. The images I have found show five, but I've gotten mixed inputs on whether me looking at an image and making inferences is considered WP:OR or not.
Right. You can pull a description from the image for an image alt, but not as an acceptable source for a description of the species, which is fair and correct. However, you could say here that Hypericum species can have 4-6 petals, with the source cited, and that is not a stretch. Since it is important, I think it is warranted here. Just make sure to distinguish when the description jumps back to H. formosissimum by introducing it with the species name. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Done
Thanks. Could combine the sentences. I did it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
How are the petals arranged?
Probably in a star-shaped pattern like other related species, but the previous dilemma arises for this as well
Same answer here as previous. It can be a combined sentence. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Not all Hypericum species have stellate flower arrangements, and I'd prefer not to do OR on the related species.
Makes sense. Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
black glands on the petals – what do these excrete?
Same issue as in previous glandular points
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Link "stamens"
Facepalming that I forgot this one
Thanks :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"The styles are two or three times as long as the ovary" – clearer to say "longer than the ovary" if that's what this means
Yep, much better
I agree, but now I see that the source uses the "two or three times as long as" wording. Is "two or three times longer than" actually the same as "two or three times as long as"? Asking you personally, because in everyday language and in writing, I would say "longer than" if that's what I mean. Is there any time that "as long as" would not mean "longer than"? I want to make sure we are not changing the author's meaning when trying to make it more clear. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I'm going to err on the side of the source on this one
Agreed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
How many seeds per capsule?
No estimates are given
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"The seeds are brown and 0.1–0.3 cm (0.039–0.118 in) long." Okay, so if the measurement is for length, then that makes me think the seeds are not round but are oblong or linear or something to which length would apply. What shape are the seeds?
I thought I missed this, but the "linear-foveolate" descriptor just refers to the shape of the pits on the surface (foveolae, for which there is interestingly no botanical article or redirect)
I think I added a comment about this near the end on the 30th. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
No chromosome count?
No chromosome count
Maybe in the future. Takes time and money, from what I understand. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"only pseudohypericin, but at similar levels to other related species like...." – so the pseudohypericin is at the similar levels of the pseudohypericin in the related species?
Yes, rephrased for clarity
Looks good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Some people will say don't combine cm/mm/m within an article – be consistent all the way through. This would mean that all mm should be changed to cm, or vice versa, etc. However, smaller measurement units are often used in a species diagnosis in a flora. In the Description, which you source from the 2013 online edition of the monologue at https://hypericum.myspecies.info/taxonomy/term/977, Robson, et. al., use m (metres) for the height and mm (millimetres) for all other measurements. Shouldn't we do the same (with the understanding that it is okay to convert to feet and inches using the Convert template)? Please let me know if you have contradictory information from Wikipedia reviews or seen something contradictory to this in a policy.
I've been instructed to stick to one measurement unless absolutely necessary (too big or too small), and for this article everything fits within a centimeter range for the most part
Hmm. Well, I just think that doesn't make sense. I wonder who came up with that idea? I disagree. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I guess go ahead and stick to the one measurement. It's not a huge deal. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Taxonomy

Where was the holotype found and where are it and any other types stored now?
The original description by Takhtajan is 100% not available online, or in the two libraries I have access to. Because Robson didn't include it in his monograph and just addended a very limited description (despite what it says on the website, it isn't present in that volume of the monograph), there is very little of the general information one would usually expect
I think I may have seen something on GBIF that could help here. I'll get back to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
--------- still for E to follow-up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"first described" (link to "Species description")
Another great call
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"This name was illegitimate, because Carl Sigismund Kunth" – citation after "illegitimate"
Not required per WP:CITEDENSE; the next reference covers the illegitimacy claim
I'll think on that, too. Got to read Citedense to see if I'm just being dense. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
--------- still for E to follow-up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
The sentence "The name was also illegitimately used by Asa Gray in 1853 to describe Hypericum scouleri.[11]" is beyond the scope of this article and would be better placed in both the H. formosum and H. scouleri articles.
I have to disagree, since this could help to clear up any confusion for readers who may have ended up on this article from the synonym H. formosum
What do you mean "ended up on this article from..."? How would they do that? A redirect? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Still looking for you to answer my question. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
No Russian article for Zametki po Sistematike i Geografii Rastenii seems to exist, so we get a red link for English and if we click on the Interlanguage link for ru, we get a page to create the article on that Wiki. Is it possible it exists in English or in Russian under a different name? Is it possible an article exists on another language's Wikipedia? I'm not sure what to do here, but it shouldn't stand as it is.
Apparently the article exists only in Asturian. I think I assumed since the journal was Russian it must have had a Russian article if it had one at all.
Okay, that's fine. If one of us were really feeling enterprising, we could create one in English. (optional lol) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
At the beginning of the second paragraph, maybe an intro sentence saying English botanist Norman Robson published a comprehensive monograph of the genus Hypericum then following up with the part about these species being excluded. So rework that a bit.
This bit was used in both H. huber-morathii and H. minutum without any issues; is there a specific error or piece that is unclear that I can fix?
This is one of those situations where it seems like it jumps right into the point without giving the reader a reason. Let me see if I can explain it tonight. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
--------- still for E to follow-up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"originally excluded in error from a comprehensive monograph of the genus" – Did Robson actually say it was an error? If so, after "excluded in error", cite the source where he says that. Also, excluded when? What year was that monograph from which they were excluded?
I've removed "in error", the 2010 paper says they were excluded but would eventually be included; it's a bit ambiguous but definitely better to exclude
That's good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"A later edition in 1996" – redundant ("A 1996 edition" would be fine.) Also, what is this a 1996 edition of?
Fixed
That's good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"discussed the morphology and relationships of H. formosissimum." – "relationships of" doesn't make sense to me. What's it saying here?
Reworded - "species related to it"
That's good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"Robson acknowledged that it and the two other excluded species should have been included in his treatment of sect. Adenosepalum, but then he advocated for their inclusion in sect. Origanifolia based on the structure of their vittae which would relatethem most closely to Hypericum aviculariifolium in the latter section." – this is an awfully long and hard to follow sentence. Can you break it up?
Good idea, an easy split at the comma
That's good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
The last sentence of the second paragraph is referencing the 1993 publication as if it happened after 1996. Can you rearrange and make sure it's all chronological and makes sense?
Reworked, I think that it now flows much better
Yes, it does. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"Further complicating the contradiction" – I don't see it as a complication. He just decided to place it in the Huber-morathii group in the 2013 publication and didn't specifically announce that he did that. I don't think that's unusual. Maybe look at your wording here.
I think you're right with that one, restructured
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Finally, after all of that, please read this section all again and try to remove any redundant wording you see. I will go over it again after that.
I think it has been much improved with the various tweaking that has been done, but a second perspective would be welcome
I'll give it a good re-read when we're about ready to press "go". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
In the tree, "Huber-Morathii Group", use sentence case.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Distribution, habitat, and ecology

Break up this section into four. This is contrary to what some reviewers at FAC may recommend, as the sections may be short, but it is generally a practice for Plants articles (see the Taxon template).
Distribution and habitat
Ecology
Conservation
Gardening (or Cultivation, but the former probably better applies here)
This is another thing I've received pushback on; I think the structure of the article is much more coherent as it is set up. If there were more information on each of these topics I would absolutely break it up, but I think they are related just enough to be nested under a single section
This is where we might consider referring a reviewer to the Plants project. Let me take another look at why we do that and elaborate here. I may be convinced or not to let it go. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Further on separating these – Pushback will likely only come up if it does get nominated as an FAC, and this can be handled at that time with an explanation and referral to the Plants project guidelines. It is standard Plants taxon template practice (see again the template for the guideline). If there is not enough information in the article, more needs to be included before FAN to make it a better article, and if we were to do that, I have ideas out of scope of this review.
The entire paragraph beginning Hypericum formosissimum was listed in the Red Data Book of Armenia as well as the map should be in its own Conservation two-level section.
With respect to Ecology, the sentence The species has been noted to be a part of a plant community centered around the flowering plant Eremurus spectabilis. can be moved into an Ecology 2-level section with the information from the footnote placed in the text in a minimally expanded format (I've seen some include a prominent common name for associates along with with the species names), and could include photos for a couple of the more prominent associate species. The ecology section can be expanded with additional information if it exists. Comprehensive expansion is not required for GA, but see if you can find information that can cover topics related to how the species interacts with its environment. Examples include
Growth cycles
Reproduction
Fungal, plant, and animal associates (including pests and diseases)
Allelopathy (I doubt any info is available on this topic for this species, but it's just one example.)
You could put the final paragraph about cultivation in the Ecology section, but it might be more appropriately placed in its own section called Uses, Propagation, or Gardening. I would personally prefer it in its own section, but you can do either.
If you literally can't find anything else on Ecology, that's understandable. Let me know, and I can check, too. Review Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Ecology to see if that helps with any ideas.
What's left will then be the D&H section which is pretty lacking in habitat information. Perhaps the habitat of the plant community described in Azad 2022 could be used a bit here, as well as information about habitats where the species has been found. At times, specimen sheets will include the habitats. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
I've added a little bit about the floristic region and broken it up as you recommended, but that was about all I could find after around another 2 hours of trawling. I think the sources have been well and truly exhausted.
This all looks much better. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Add the | alt = parameter to the Location map template, using WP:ALT as the guide. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Not done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Elevation should convert from meters to feet, not meters to yards. Use the {{Convert}} template.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"The village of Bozdağ, which is the type locality for Hypericum minutumIn Turkey, it is only found in the Yukarı Murat-Van [tr] region of eastern Anatolia."
Is using Hypericum minutum an error here?
There are a few typos as well.
I think that first bit was erroneously added when I pasted in the location map after completing the article; I've removed it now
Better. :) Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Is there an Armenian Wikipedia? Does it have an article for the Red Data Book of Armenia that we can use Ill with?
I think I've found it, let me know if the ILL works
It works. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
"When cultivating the plant, it is grown in" – that reads funny. Reword.
Done
Better. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Citations

Add archive links at archive.org for the web sources and use them in the citation templates.
Done for all except the POWO cites since the template doesn't support them; POWO is very stable though so I don't think there should be issues there
Good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
The following citation gives me a big red 404 error with a message in Turkish that translates to "No category found Please try one of the following pages: Homepage".
"Bitlis kantaronu". Bizim Bitkiler. Retrieved 10 September 2024.
I've added an archived version
Good. Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
NEW – needs a publisher (giving a maintenance message): "Takhtajan, Armen (1986). Floristic Regions of the World. Berkeley." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
First round done. Please review and make changes or comments or ask questions. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Whew! Eewilson, I think I've addressed all of your comments, please let me know if I missed anything at all. Best, Fritzmann (message me) 20:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Description – more

Leaves in 2013 source: "subcoriaceous" not coriaceous.
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Did you intentionally leave out the pedicel measurement from inflorescence description? "pedicels 1-2 mm"
Should be added
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Sepals measurement doesn't match source. From 2013 source: "Sepals 2-2.5 ´ 1-1.5 mm"
Done
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Petals pale yellow – Source says "pale? yellow", implying uncertainty?
That can imply uncertainty but I think that leaving it as-is, since there's nothing to imply they aren't pale, should be OK
That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Do you think "partial vittae" is the same as source's "interrupted vittae"? Not sure, just asking.
I've seen both used to say the same thing, just trying to avoid close paraphrasing
Okay, good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Seed measurement in source does not qualify it as the length. "Seeds brown, 1-3 mm" is all it says.
Changed text to reflect that
Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
If you choose, you do not have to convert the metric to US at all in the descriptioon since this is a scientific article and the plant has no presence in the US. Doing that would make it flow better if you add a few more botanical terms in parentheses (as you did with coriaceous [subcoriaceous?] which I would prefer, as mentioned above).
Fritzmann2002 Okay, I still have more reviewing of your comments as well as another deep-dive (yes, another), including some more citation comparison, but I made some additional comments on the Description section after looking at the source. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Works for me! I'll probably get back to this sometime tomorrow. A broader discussion may be warranted specifically on the breaking up of sections, since that is probably outside either of our wheelhouses to decide. Fritzmann (message me) 23:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes. I was thinking about bringing up two things on the plants project talk page: this and the citing of sources in the taxo box. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to have to quit for the night, unfortunately. A long day tomorrow. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Fritzmann2002 Hi! I have now checked almost everything you have done since the review began. I added more comments for several. I still have three things to follow up on and a more thorough source review (spot-checking isn't necessary here as there are not hundreds of sources) to do. I'm also still thinking on that distribution map. At the end, we will want to see if additional adjustments need to be made to the lead. You can work over the weekend on it if you're available, as I will wait to get back to this until after you do. Reminder that I will be offline on Tuesday (October 8) and likely Wednesday (October 9). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think everything has been addressed, though the length of the review means I may have missed something. Awaiting any further comments you have. Fritzmann (message me) 19:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Fritzmann2002 Hi! Thanks for your continued work! I have seen several instances where the attempt to overly simplify botanical terms has actually changed the meaning from the source's description of the plant, so we have to be careful with that. I made some changes to the description to clean that up. I marked a few things you missed from this review, and I still have some open issues on here. It would be great if we could get this finished this weekend! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Is there a chance you could list them in a new subsection? I'm having a bit of trouble navigating the review above. Fritzmann (message me) 23:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
You don't have it all memorized?? :) Of course. I can pull out what's left and what's new now if you wish. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
That would be much appreciated, thank you! Fritzmann (message me) 00:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


#### Remaining and new items (pulled from discussion area for ease of use)
Fritzmann2002, these are your current out-standing tasks. I have several as well which may add a little more to do. The final thing will be to see if anything else needs to be added to the Lead. I find that saving updates to the lead to the end helps produce a good Lead.

Y Infobox: At the end of the Authority parameter, tag on a citation (| authority = [[Armen Takhtajan|Takht.]]<<citation>>).
AND
Need to set synonyms reference (| synonyms_ref = <<citation>>).
Eewilson most recent reply:
Although the Infobox is placed before the body prose, it is not a part of the Lead. Thus, if there is a field for a reference in the Infobox, use it. For Authority, tag the reference to the end. Both of these are probably coming from the same reference – POWO.
Y The first time each scientist is mentioned in the body, briefly describe their origin and field (e.g., American botanist) like was done in the Lead.
Y In the Etymology section, based on your reply to my question about using the word "possibly" with respect to the origin of the genus name ("It says there are a few theories on the naming, but that this is the most commonly accepted and the one the author gives officially"), I think it would be best if we change the wording to use something besides "possibly" that better reflects that Wikipedia is not drawing that conclusion and that the theory is coming from the source.
Y In the Taxonomy section, I had said:
The sentence "The name was also illegitimately used by Asa Gray in 1853 to describe Hypericum scouleri.[11]" is beyond the scope of this article and would be better placed in both the H. formosum and H. scouleri articles.
Then you said:
I have to disagree, since this could help to clear up any confusion for readers who may have ended up on this article from the synonym H. formosum
And I asked:
What do you mean "ended up on this article from..."? How would they do that? A redirect?
Status is that I'm waiting on you to answer my questions here so I'll know what you mean.
Clause moved to Hypericum scouleri article
Y Add the | alt = parameter to the Location map template, using WP:ALT as the guide.
Y This citation needs a publisher (it is giving a maintenance message): "Takhtajan, Armen (1986). Floristic Regions of the World. Berkeley."
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Eewilson, all finished now! Thanks for listing that out, it made it much more straightforward to knock out the remaining issues. Fritzmann (message me) 02:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Fritzmann2002, Excellent! Let's just press go! I reviewed the things I was concerned about and decided they are not important for GA. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Eewilson, want me to submit a nomination to FA? I'll include you as a co-nom and we can tackle the responses over the following weeks. Fritzmann (message me) 02:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it yet. I think it would be best if we can see if we can gather more information, particularly on some of the items I left outstanding. Additionally, I won't be available for at least another month because I have three open GANs to review (two of them yours). Does that sound okay? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I think my other two GANs should not take quite as long since they will probably not be going to FAC anytime soon. Looking forward to working on those with you when you get around to them! Fritzmann (message me) 03:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


### 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: