Talk:Hypericum bupleuroides/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Review time, you know the drill. No concerns about stability and the nominator is the primary author. The article description is rather long but it's not GA criteria, just an observation. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 06:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Images
 * Image rights are in order.
 * The taxobox image needs a captions.
 * Done
 * Would love to see some ALT text (Optional)
 * Added, hopefully it is what you are looking for, I'm not very good with the accessibility aspect
 * The cladogram was messing with the Ecology header, so I moved it.
 * Looks good

Sources
 * All sources manually checked.
 * No concerns about reliability
 * All links are live
 * I recommend archiving the sources. (Optional)

Copy-Vios
 * Spot checks finds nothing exciting
 * Earwig is clear

Prose
 * 45–80 centimeters tall add a convert template. Broadly speaking, this article needs multiple.
 * Per MOS:CONVERSIONS: "in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so"
 * "unusual" I was able to find this in the source but the word unusual isn't used elsewhere in the article. Please either specify why this is unusual or use the later terminology 'most notable characteristic'.
 * Good call
 * lack glands. unclear what this means, I assume Gland (botany)
 * Yes
 * The length of stem between leaves awkward wording
 * Put into parenthetical
 * The article is seriously WP:UNDERLINK. I made some headway but only did the lead.
 * Likely a result of over compensating for overlinking concerns in a recent FAC. It is difficult to find a balance as a non-layman; feel free to suggest or add any links you think necessary
 * paler on the underside Paler than what? I assume the top of the leaf but it isn't explicitly stated. Unless you mean 'Pallor'.
 * do not have a greyish tint Since you don't discuss color up until this point, it's hard to judge why this is notable information or even what it means.
 * - e.g. If you have a red apple you just say it's red, instead of describing it as 'not blue'. (If that helps illustrate what I mean)


 * Funnily, that is often how leaf color is described. In this case, the description "not glaucous" is the only mention of leaf color we have. I have still changed the wording to indicate that means they are green.
 * They have glands in linear patters.. spelling, also it's unclear what the 'they' is in this sentence
 * Clarified
 * eight times more petals I highly doubt there are always, exactly 8 times more petals. Add a qualifier like: 'there are generally eight times...'
 * Done
 * They are a narrow lance-like unclear what the 'they' is referring to
 * Done
 * and phenolic compounds awkwardly phrased.
 * Reworded
 * Previous studies of the chemical profile of Hypericum bupleuroides in 2001 and 2004 be more specific
 * The studies are listed at the referenced source. They are outdated and I don't think giving a great deal of elaboration on them is necessary. I only included this to demonstrate that multiple previous attempts did not find the mentioned phytochemicals
 * 'While a 2009 study' boardering on WP:WEASEL
 * How so? The study is referenced at the end of that sentence, thus it is properly attributed. I am not claiming that "some studies say", but am referring to exactly one study that says exactly this.
 * In general, be more specific when referring to studies
 * Likewise, I push back on this. The article will not benefit from spending undue time in the prose discussing the publishing details of phytochemical surveys. The studies are specifically laid out in the references section.
 * almost all of the previously mentioned secondary metabolites are found more densely in the flowers. vague statement.
 * In what way should it be made more specific?
 * plant as Hypericum perfoliatum, do you mean 'Hypericum perforatum''
 * No, I mean Hypericum perfoliatum
 * -Why was this incorrect? Was was wrong with this classification.
 * -Hypericum perfoliatum is a different species that has an overlapping distribution. The sources do not say why von Lebedour misidentified the specimen; it was likely just an observational error. However, speculating such a thing would be OR or SYNTH


 * The first reference to H. bupleuroides This isn't the first reference technically, its the second. Unless you mean that this is the first reference to it's current name
 * I have specified it as such
 * . It was suggested that the section's relationships should be reevaluated specify
 * Done
 * n. This process is not known to be possible for most Hypericum species, but it has been demonstrated to work in H. erectum, H. perforatum, H. brasiliense, and numerous others contradictory info.
 * There are 490 species of Hypericum, and it is not possible in most of them. However, there are still numerous species like the ones listed where it is possible. I have changed the wording to clarify this
 * In some conditions, H. bupleuroides produces excessive callusing at the same time as new shooting, while in other conditions there is only new shooting. Not quite sure what this sentence is going for. What conditions? I think the sentence needs to be moved to later in the paragraph.
 * I have reworded but not moved, if it is still not clear I can continue to tinker
 * Make the uses section a subsection for chemicals.
 * Done

I made some gramatical/clarification edits, please review. Now on hold. 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 02:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to each individual point as noted, thank you for the review. Fritzmann (message me) 17:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fritzmann2002 Thank you. The only other things I could find on second review were that:
 * Please give a brief mention of its discovery in the lead, a one sentence blurb before the 'section Bupleuroides' sentence would be fine. (This is optional but highly reecommended)
 * Great idea, I've added a sentence
 * Hypericum bupleuroides is the sole member of section Bupleuroides, to which it was assigned by Norman Robson in his monograph of the genus Hypericum. It was previously thought to be most closely related to the Chinese species Hypericum elatoides, but more recent phylogenetic studies have demonstrated it has a much closer relationship to section Androsaemum and Hypericum canariense. isn't stated explicitly in the taxonomy section. You implicitly refer to Robson's contribution without discussing his monograph. Likewise, you don't specify that the chinese species relationship was scrapped. This give the impression that the relationships between Androsaemum, Hypericum canariense, and Hypericum elatoides are all equally valid.
 * I hope I've cleared up the first point with an additional sentence. As for the relationships, none of them have been "scrapped", per se. The more recent study used modern methods to determine relationships (and is probably more accurate), but it could just as well be disproven in the future. In the end, they are all just best-guesses, and the more recent study doesn't explicitly reject a relationship of some form to H. elatoides. I hope that explanation is clear, evolutionary relationships is a damned convoluted field and I know I struggle with it frequently.
 * 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 05:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review, I hope I have adequately responded to all your points. Fritzmann (message me) 14:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is good to go!! Congrats!! 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 21:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Article is good to go!! Congrats!! 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 21:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)