# Talk:Hypericum × inodorum

I could not find any mention of the lifespan or size of the plant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
What eats it? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I've added a mention that it is perennial (none of the sources I've found give anything more detailed than that), added a measurement for its spread (the height was already included), and noted that insect herbivory is not a major threat to the plant (especially the cultivated varieties). Thanks for noticing those gaps! Fritzmann (message me) 13:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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

@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)