Talk:Hypericum foliosum

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 foliosum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 22:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: "and was then placed into section Androsaemum" ... 2 centuries later: I suggest we split the sentence and drop the "then", given the distance in time.

• Changed to "later"

• "hydrocarbons; it also has significant concentrations" - suggest "hydrocarbons, and significant concentrations".

• Done

• "and antihypertensive." -> "and antihypertensive properties." There is a slight danger here that we are endorsing all these (supposed) properties as genuine but it's probably ok here.

• Changed to "for ... purposes" to address that, I think that softens the chance of endorsement a little. If you have other verbiage suggestions, by all means

• Description: text is pretty clear to those of us with a biology background; the links are certainly a good contribution to intelligibility, but a diagram would still be very useful for the general reader.

• Added simple diagram from the Robson article, hopefully it's helpful

• Similar species: "told apart from H. grandifolium because it has" -> "told apart from H. grandifolium by its".

• Done

• Chemistry: "pinene also sometimes made up" -> "pinene sometimes can make up".

• Done

• Taxonomy: Tree is too cramped, suggest increase the text size (to 100%, along with the line spacing), and the box width. "on a 2013 study": yes, but "on Meseguer et al 2013" would be more informative.

• Let me know if that is better, not particularly knowledgeable with cladograms

• Suggest you mention that the Androsaemum group is Old World, per Meseguer.

• Done

• Etymology: what's it doing down here? Top of the article would be better and more usual, or perhaps top of 'Taxonomy' I suppose if you really want to keep it out of sight.

• Totally valid, moved up

• Ecology: "aecia and telia": now these terms are genuinely obscure to all but mycologists, so please provide brief text glosses for them: if indeed they need to be mentioned here at all. Better really would be an image, and a brief mention of how damaging the rust fungus is, rather than the names of its various parts, i.e. "The rust fungus ... infects the plant, causing mild/moderate/serious damage to the leaves" (or whatever).

• Done

• Uses: "in similar ways to other species in the genus": maybe mention this is antidepressant (from Hypericin, etc); it's very well documented, unlike much herbal medicine: you probably should cite it specifically.

• I haven't actually been able to find anything on hypericin in this guy, unusually. Maybe I just missed it, but antidepressant capabilities don't seem like this species' forte. That phrase was more to communicate that the authors found that locals said (paraphrasing obv), "yeah we use this plant to fix messed up medical stuff like all the other ones that look like it around here"

• OK that's genuinely surprising. Evolution can lose almost anything (except the genetic code), I guess.

• "It also has antioxidant properties that derive from its carotenoid and phenolic oils." would be better as "Its carotenoids and phenolic oils give it antioxidant properties."

• Done

Images

• The images are on Commons and appear to be suitably licensed.

Sources

• Gaffiot 1934 is a whole dictionary: it is not in use in the article and no entry is specified so it's not clear why it's here.

• Was going to use it for the foliosus/foliosum etymology, but found a much better source and just never removed the bib ref. Fixed now, thanks

• All the other sources are clearly relevant; those I could check verify the claims in the text.

Summary

@Chiswick Chap: thanks for another great review, let me know if there are any other fixes I can make! Fritzmann (message me) 04:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

All done, but if you feel like reviewing something, that'd be greatly appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 15 January 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.

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Hypericum foliosum "shines" because of carotenoid compounds? Source: Rainha, Nuno; Lima, Elisabete; Baptista, José; Rodrigues, Carolina (2011). "Antioxidant properties, total phenolic, total carotenoid and chlorophyll content of anatomical parts of Hypericum foliosum". Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, page 1933. Aiton, William; Bauer, Franz Andreas; Sowerby, James; Ehret, Georg Dionysius; Nicol, George (1789). Hortus Kewensis, or, A catalogue of the plants cultivated in the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew. Vol. 3. London, page 104.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lancelot of Navarre

Improved to Good Article status by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hypericum foliosum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Hook fact does not appear in article text. Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: how is ALT1: "... that the shining St John's wort owes its bright colors to carotenoid compounds?" Both the common name and the claim that carotenoids contribute to bright colors are in the text. Fritzmann (message me) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That reads like a bit of an overstatement to me. I think if the word "partly" was added after "colors" it would probably work. Gatoclass (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: "... that the shining St John's wort owes its bright colors partly to carotenoid compounds?" Fritzmann (message me) 17:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That looks fine now, thanks Fritzmann, however, because the source is offline, I will have to ask you to put a cite directly behind the relevant sentence in the article - thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: the Rainha et al. citation is already present at the previous sentence and following one. Certainly an identical citation is not required three times in one paragraph? Fritzmann (message me) 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Fritzmann2002, the DYK rules specify that the cite must come at the end of the sentence in which the hook fact appears. Normally, I don't worry about this if the hook fact can be readily verified online, but for an offline source, it is generally necessary because otherwise we can get complaints when the nom goes to the main page. I have therefore added the additional cite, but you are perfectly welcome to remove it after the article has appeared if you prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: fair enough, thanks for bearing with me! Fritzmann (message me) 14:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)