# Talk:Hypericum aegypticum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum aegypticum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sauriazoicillus (talk · contribs) 08:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this article is perfect for GA status, the only thing I would add is a cladogram, which I would gladly make if nessecary for it to be elevated to GA. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sauriazoicillus: I very much appreciate the stamp of approval, but there are strict criteria for a nomination to pass. Typically, editors who are well-versed with the guidelines will give a thorough review; not to be impolite but it would probably be prudent to have a second opinion on the article unless you feel confident that you understand the criteria. You can request that using the second opinion template. Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh no I totally agree, I was just requested to write up something on the article to start off discussion, I wasn't the one who nominated it, I had no idea about the second opinion template thank you for informing me Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's another opinion, and some comments about things that might be improved. Let me know if you'd like more detailed comments (I only briefly skimmed the article). Esculenta (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

the taxonomy section does not mention Linnaeus, nor the etymology (which is given in the lead, uncited)
Added paragraph discussing the original record in Species Plantarum
the lead is too short to adequately summarize the article contents. In particular, the description is a massive part of the article but barely mentioned in the lead.
Split the lead into two paragraphs, one of which focuses on the description of the plant. I think that if needed this section could be expanded somewhat, but it is difficult to distill botanical descriptions into few words without devolving into obscurant jargon.
should link the authorities in the (taxobox) synonyms section
All authorities linked
add cats Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus; Category:Plants described in 1753; flora of other places than Malta
Suggested cats added
in the antimicrobial section, should mention that the effects are from in vitro studies to not run afoul of WP:MEDRS policies
Added, great catch
it's useful to add non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to prevent unsightly line breaks
? how would this look? I'm not quite sure I would know how to do this but I think I understand the idea
Like this: H. aegypticum Esculenta (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Done
should check image captions for compliance to MOS:CAPFRAG
Checked, fixed two
I think all of the convert templates should be checked for sensible outputs. For example, 0.5–1 millimetre (0.020–0.039 inches) results in too many sig figs in the output; instead use 0.5–1 millimetre (0.02–0.04 inches)
All conversions now have no more than 2 sig figs
It’s unnecessary to convert micrometre measurements to inches. Can you find 0.0018 inches on your ruler? On the flip side, "1600 meters above sea level" should have a conversion.
Micrometer conversions removed, meter conversions added
@Esculenta: thanks for the look! If you'd be willing to perform a full review I'd greatly appreciate it, but if not then I totally understand and thank you for your already very helpful input. Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 23:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be happy to add some more expansive comments after a closer read, but probably not until tomorrow. Esculenta (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Sounds great, I'll do my best to implement changes expediently. Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 00:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
More comments. I think the technical description needs some work to make it more lay-friendly. I sympathize with the difficulty of doing this properly, as I spend much of my time here translating lichen-related jargon into something resembling English. Esculenta (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

"It has many branches and can be busy or spreading" I don't know what busy means in this context
I've rewritten the sentence to make it more readable
"…are usually two lined, but can sometimes have four lines." What kind of lines? Are these lines taxonomically significant? Do they run along the entire length of the stem?
This is pretty vague in the sources. I can't speak a whole lot on it without reaching into OR. It isn't mentioned whether they are veins or just markings or something else, and their characteristics aren't elaborated upon. I still reworded the sentence, but I'm not able to go into much more detail than that at the moment. I'll circle back to this if I get the chance and take a deeper look.
"They start as ancipitous, but soon become terete." They're what and become what?
Defined, that one just totally slipped through
links or glosses would be helpful for these terms: wings; internodes; micrometer (link on 1st use and then use abbreviation); petiolate; oblong; laminal; marginal; gland; mesophyll; calyx; section; essential oil (link on 1st occurrence); caryophellene oxide (check spelling of this); E-caryophellene (also, the “E” should be italicized); ishwarane; morphologically; threatened
Linked/corrected all but threatened. I'm hesitant to link to the IUCN article, because this is technically not an IUCN rating but a local data book. I don't want to confuse readers into thinking the IUCN gave it their threatened status, as the local book probably has a slightly different definition. I'm open to suggestions for that
"… it is diffuse-porous as opposed to ring-porous." say what?
Explained that diffuse-porous is even distribution while ring-porous is more dense in a series of concentric circles
The details on cell dimensions are highly technical data for a wikipedia audience. I’m having difficulty thinking of a situation where one would need to know that the upper side of the leaf is 0.9 μm thinner than the lower side. To me it just looks like the leaf dimensions for the top and bottom are pretty much the same. If you think this needs to stay, perhaps convert the table to a summary sentence?
I think just removing it is fine so I took it out
"…a "sterile" region which lacks them which grow from around" repetitive "which". In general they article could use an audit of the use of the word "which"; in several instances where "which" occurs, "that" should be used instead.
Trimmed down the use of "which", let me know if more should be changed
"However, some specimens lack the sterile region" A specimen is a collected sample; presumably this occurs in individuals that have not been collected, so a different word choice is needed.
Changed to plants
"They overlap one another and are not quite equal." in size?
Yes, specified
"linear-foveolate to linear-rugulose" eh?
Yup, let quite a few of these through the cracks. English-ified the sentence
the Latin description in the taxonomy section isn’t going to be useful or interesting for the average reader; those who want to see this can go to the link. Speaking of which, the outgoing BHL link in the citation should point to [the actual page] rather than the title page.
Removed and re-linked
What are the major characteristics of section Adenotrias, of which this plant is a member?
Not a whole lot of section descriptions available, so I'll need to do more research. Would it be OR if I compared the descriptions of each of the three species for common characteristics? That may be the only way to get that information.
"Molecular phylogenetics have demonstrated" have->has
Done
"The following subspecies are accepted:" by who?
Noted by POWO
Is there enough literature available to warrant individual articles on the subspecies? If not (and judging from a quick literature search this looks to be the case), they probably should not be redlinked, and more detail included in this article as to how these subspecies differ from the nominate species.
Probably a good call to have their information here. I haven't added it yet but will incorporate a paragraph or so for each after doing a bit of researching.
check article throughout for inconsistency in American vs British English spelling. E.g. micrometre vs. color
Micrometres/millimetres should all be changed to micrometers/millimeters
some conversions still need editing, e.g. 5–7 millimetres (0.20–0.28 inches)
I think I cut all the ones that make sense, the ones remaining vary by less than .1 inches, so cutting them further would be too ambiguous
Is there any more story that could be added in the taxonomy section regarding the synonyms? E.g., why did Pierre Boissier think the taxon was better placed in Triadenia? What's with William Jack and Yojiro Kimura both naming it Elodea aegyptica? Why does Hypericum webii not have an authority?
Hmm, a good question. It may be pretty hard to find the other authors' descriptions, but I can dig around a bit. Taxonomic history, as I'm sure you're well aware, is not something most people value recording. There may be a few good nuggets out there I can glean though.
If it's available, a closeup of the flower would be a good addition to the Inflorescence subsection.
Found a pretty good one
Do people grow this plant for their own gardens? If yes, is it difficult to grow? How is it propagated? When is the flowering season? Are there special soil/sunlight/nutritional requirements? Hardiness?
From what I've seen, the plant is not cultivated at all. However, I can't necessarily say that in the article, because it may be cultivated and they just didn't write about it. It isn't a showy plant at all, just a wild shrub. It's rather surprising, though, that there aren't any mentions that it's used for herbal medicines; most Hypericum species are even if they're quite uncommon. Again, though, it isn't said anywhere that it isn't used for herbal medicine, so I can't claim that in the article. When I'm looking for the other info though I will be sure to keep an eye out for this.
@Esculenta: I've addressed most of the suggestions. I still need to expand the subspecies section, look for some information on common characteristics of Adenotrias, and incorporate some taxonomic history if there is any. I'm doubtful there will be anything out there on cultivation, but if I come across anything I'll add it in as well. Let me know if there's anything else you've found while I'm working! Fritzmann (message me) 17:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Esculenta: just made another edit. The subspecies section has been expanded with their morphological differences and a reference back to their different distributions. I made it more clear that section Adenotrias is united because of the shared trait of heterostyly. The taxonomic history was very obtuse, but I think I've added a brief summary that shouldn't confuse the reader. I'm sure you know, but trying to untangle the work of taxonomists is like trying to untangle a mile-long ball of yarn. I'd strangle some of those 19th century scientists if I could. I'd bet you'll probably find more work to be done, so just let me know what I need to do when you get the chance! Fritzmann (message me) 23:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@Esculenta: Hello! Just wondering if there were further comments that I should start working on. Hope your weekend was well! Very respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 13:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll have another read-through today and let you know if there's anything else. Esculenta (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
while checking other sources for comprehensiveness, I noticed that this species used used as an example in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code) (see here) (section 10.3, pg. 38). This led me to Robson 1977, and the discussion on page 305 about H. aegypticum as the type (or not) of section Elodes). I'll let you be the judge of whether this is worth a mention in the taxonomy section.
Added a taxonomic history section to deal with this. The mention in the ICN is interesting, but I'm not sure how to use it in the article or if it would be appropriate. If you have any ideas let me know.
the description should state explicitly how many petals there are, and this should probably be in the lead too. According to Robson 1977, Linnaeus' generic concept of Hypericum was basically "5 petals, numerous stamens", so the petal/stamen arrangement seems essential enough to be included in the lead.
Totally agree. Added.
I think the lead also should briefly explain the floral polymorphism characterizing the heterostyly of this plant (in layman’s terms, of course…).
Brief explanation given, let me know if more is warranted.
max height should also be in lead; maybe also why it’s named after Egypt
Max height added. Put in a blurb about Egypt, I think it could be worked in better if there are other ideas
chromosome number could be added to article (given as 2n=20 in Robson 1977)
Added
what are the "small translucent glands" for? Anything interesting in them?
This is a tough subject, because research on it is very limited even across the whole of Hypericum. Their function really isn't known, but there are a lot of theories. However, there isn't any literature about them specifically for Hypericum aegypticum, and from what I've read theories on their function vary from species to species.
H. aegypticum was once the type of the now defunct genus Triadenia. What characterized this genus, and who published it and when?
Incorporated into a taxonomic history section
Robson (p. 344) mentions "The floral anomalies of … the H. aegypticum L. group of species are modifications related to specialized insect pollination, and these species should be included in Hypericum, not placed in separate genera." This seems to imply that perhaps historically there was some dispute about whether the taxon should be in this genus? Also, floral adaptations to enhance insect pollination should be mentioned in the article.
Some of the discussion on whether H. aegypticum should be included in Hypericum are included in the taxonomic history section now as well. As for the floral adaptations, I believe Robson is referring to the species' heterostyly, which is discussed in-depth elsewhere in the article. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting that
several other chemicals (naphtodianthrones, acylphloroglucinols and polyphenols) have been identified from this species; see doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2018.05.003. I’m not saying its necessary to list everything, but you might find a few tidbits to beef up the "Uses" section. Speaking of which, the in vitro antimicrobial effects don't really qualify as a "Use" per se, so maybe an alternative section title is needed?
Mentioned in the phytochemistry section. There is a lot more material in that paper, but a great deal of it is far beyond the scope of our encyclopedia and isn't of much use to a layperson, at least in my opinion. If you're willing to skim it and see anything else you believe warrants inclusion I defer to that, but I think a brief mention of the constituents is probably sufficient.
In the "subdivision" subsection, I'd like to see what the original published names of these subspecies were (and when and by who) and citations for these publications if possible. When did Robson transfer them to Hypericum (and a brief summary of his justification for the transfer, again if available)? Esculenta (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Added a short paragraph.


### Status query
Esculenta, Fritzmann, where does this nomination and its review stand? Esculenta, have you formally taken over the review? If so, the status should probably be changed to "on hold" or "on review" from "2nd opinion". Fritzmann, I don't see that you've addressed any of the issues from 11 April as yet? Do you plan to do so soon? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure where it stands. A second opinion was requested; I gave one, but have not "officially" taken over the review. That's all I know. Esculenta (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Esculenta, given all the issues you found after original (and I think first-time) GA reviewer Sauriazoicillus pronounced the article GA quality, I think it's clear that they have insufficient experience of GA and its criteria to conduct the sort of review called for. Would you be willing to take over the review, assuming Fritzmann wishes to continue? If not, we can open it up to other potential reviewers. Thank you for the quick response. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to be severely curtailing my wiki time for the summer quite soon, so it's probably best to put it back in the queue and let another editor take over. That will give Fritzmann time to work on it at their leisure, and if some of the most recent round of suggestions I offered are incorporated into the article, it should be pretty easy for the next GA reviewer to promote this. Esculenta (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@Esculenta and BlueMoonset: sorry about the delay, I have been without a PC for a while because of travel. I'm more than happy to address the most recent comments; to be completely honest I hadn't realized that there was more yet to be done since a formal review hasn't been started. I'll begin working on them tomorrow unless something catastrophic arises, but over the next three weeks or so I believe I will be at least somewhat free to finish getting the article through GAN. Thank you both for the time you've put into this! Fritzmann (message me) 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Esculenta and BlueMoonset: apologies for another ping, just thought I'd let you know that all comments have been addressed. If either of you know anyone who'd be willing to take the review to the finish line or would like to help with that yourselves I am all for it! Thanks again. Fritzmann (message me) 02:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


### Full review still needed
While an extensive second opinion has been given, this nomination has never been given a comprehensive GA review. A full review is still needed. Thank you to whoever takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's okay if the original reviewer wants to approve it.  Some of these comments were more "extensive" than "appropriate".  See, e.g., "add cats Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus; Category:Plants described in 1753; flora of other places than Malta".  The Wikipedia:Good article criteria does not include one word about categories.  Some of the points, such as "the original published names of these subspecies were (and when and by who)" might actually go against the criteria ("stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), and others lean towards the FA criteria about comprehensiveness.  Some of it was unnecessary (e.g., non-breaking spaces) – a nice detail, but not something that actually makes the difference between whether "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct".  I'm just as tempted as the next person to ask for one more detail (did you know the Maltese name refers to climbing cliffs?), but GACR doesn't support that.
I realize I'm complaining here, so let me add that much of this was valuable (e.g., various bits of jargon clarified), but sometimes it feels to me like a GA review is an exercise in showing how tough we can be, instead of figuring out whether or not the article basically meets the written criteria.  While it is a nicer article now, it probably could have been approved as actually meeting the GACR with almost none of these changes.  I don't think we should deride a first-time reviewer for correctly noticing that this article was either compliant or very close to it at the time of nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing I'm indifferent on further course of action, I just want to get this out of GAN. I'll never shy away from criticism to improve an article but this has been in the quagmire for way too long in my opinion. Fritzmann (message me) 12:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002, the original reviewer hasn't edited for two months.  I'll read it tonight or over the weekend.  I'll fix any small things that I think need to be fixed.  I'll list it if I think it meets the criteria, and otherwise I'll fail it.  The only reason I'll post here is if I run across a problem that I can't fix but I think you could fix easily.  Either way, we'll be done soon.  Does that work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing absolutely, sounds good. I appreciate the help! Fritzmann (message me) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fritzmann2002, I added a bunch of links, which you should feel free to revert or refine.  I was thinking about how easy it is to get used to the jargon, and how impenetrable it would be to, say, a high school biology student.  As long as you don't revert the grammar fix, anything else I did is something you should feel free to accept or reject, just like you would with any other editor.
The page number for Hypericum aegypticum#cite ref-Marčetić 2016 11-2 is wrong (and you might check the first ref to that source as well).  That source is not one of the WP:MEDRS ideal sources, but I think it is acceptable for the specific sentence you are supporting.  Everything else is okay, and I'll list it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: tweaked the page number on that one, should be good now. Thanks again for the review and closing this out. Please don't hesitate to reach out if you would like help on another article, I'm always open to collaborating! Best wishes, Fritzmann (message me) 15:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad we were able to get this one closed out.  I actually enjoyed reading this article and the detailed description of the different parts of the plant.  Thanks for writing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)