Talk:Hypericum × inodorum/GA1

GA Review
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.


 * 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)