Talk:Hypericum perforatum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I hope to review this over the weekend. I've done a first read-through, and it looks good. I only noticed one criterion that needs quite a bit more work: 1a (Make technical articles understandable), in particular WP:EXPLAINLEAD. While at some places, jargon is explained elegantly by providing context, there is a lot of it, and the lead is likely to be read by people without background knowledge of things like a "type species", stamens, pistils, cosmopolitan distribution. Unavoidable jargon can be made easier to guess if surrounding words are easy. Avoid difficult words like conspicious and noxious, and replace them with plain English like "clearly visible" and "harmful". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Femke, thanks for picking this up! Would you like me to go through and see what I can do in that regard before you begin the review? I could probably look at it tomorrow evening and at least take care of some of the low-hanging fruit. Fritzmann (message me) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be amazing :) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I went through quickly and caught what I could. A few notes: there is more information on the phytochemicals out there. However, most of it is just myriad studies on the essential oil or chemical composition of the plant. For other Hypericum species, I've devoted a greater amount of material to that section because it constituted the bulk of coverage by reliable sources. However, here there is a great deal of other info that I feel is much more important for the article, so I've kept the section very brief and just retained the table of concentrations from earlier in the article's history. If you feel that the section should be expanded, that can absolutely be done.
 * Additionally, I'd appreciate specific scrutiny towards the medicinal side of things in the article. It's an area that I am not at all familiar with the Wikipedia regulations for, and while we've done our best to keep it neutral and appropriate, lack of knowledge could certainly have led to some minor issues that more experienced eyes would catch. Again, the review is much appreciated! Fritzmann (message me) 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems I have to do this in two parts, given that my golfer's elbow is playing up again. So everything I can't do with voice dictation, will be done next week hopefully.

Lead:
 * I would not mentioned the type species in the first sentence or even in the lead. It's too difficult, and likely only of interest to a small portion of readers. The first sentence should invite people to read the article.
 * Removed mention
 * In the first sentence of the second paragraph, I would remove "in large amount", to improve prose.
 * Also removed

Description:
 * what is a taproot?
 * Added "central root" as a brief descriptor
 * What does it mean that the stems may appear jointed from leaf scars? I do not know whether leaf scar is.
 * Added additional context
 * Did you know you are free to leave out inches in scientific articles? It may improve readability.
 * I always forget to do this, thank you for the reminder
 * What are sepals?
 * Added "leaf-like" to describe the structures
 * What are riparian areas?
 * Noted they are along rivers
 * Insert a comma after in addition, before its leaves have fewer translucent glands
 * Done
 * in the paragraph about other native species in North America, the second example doesn't really explain how it is different from St John's wort, is it more delicate?
 * Yes, made it more clear that it is smaller and more delicate
 * When describing the most common active chemicals, three chemicals seem to be named, where the wording says "the two most common active chemicals"
 * Reworded and hopefully made the whole sentence more clear

Taxonomy
 * what is the type species?
 * Gave a shot at some brief context, would appreciate a second look as to whether it is effective.
 * I think it's good enough. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Knowing nothing about plants sourcing, I wonder whether a source from 2002 is sufficiently recent to source a sentence like "the current accepted placement". Is there a more modern source?
 * Yes, there are likely some more modern sources for the placement; however, Norman Robson is pretty much the definitive expert on Hypericum taxonomy. This reference is from the first part of his monograph on the genus, which was finished just a few years ago. It's probably the most reliable source we've got just because of his expertise, which is why I opted to use it for much of the info including the subgeneric arrangement.
 * allopolyploid, what is it?
 * Explained
 * If I understand correctly, this means that the original plan and had 16 chromosomes.  is that right?  and should it be spelled-out?
 * Yes, both original plants had 16 chromosomes. That is demonstrated in the equation for the hybridization after the first paragraph
 * What does it mean to be intermediate for at least a single generation?
 * Having trouble explaining this one. I think it's a little clearer now but if not let me know.
 * I think it's clear to me.

History
 * consider using the lang template for non-English words. This ensures that text-to-speech software knows how to pronounce it, so it improves accessibility.
 * Added to all but "fuga daemonium," I don't think it's proper Latin but rather a weird medieval dialect, so I'd rather not give it a language code.
 * a few are still missing, Such as Amsterdammer.  —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did another sweep, hopefully have caught all the ones where it is appropriate

infraspecifics
 * I don't know what that is, is there a better heading in plain English?
 * Changed to "subdivision," if you have other ideas I'd be happy to change it again
 * It may be good to spell out what SSP means the first time you use the abbreviation
 * Good idea, did the same for variety
 * what is an inflorescence?
 * Changed to "flower clusters"

Ecology
 * optional: the caption of country level distribution should not have "." At the end as it's a sentence fragment.
 * Good catch
 * The last sentence of distribution contains a typo in the fourth word
 * Yup
 * what is a soil seed bank?
 * Explained it is a place where seeds lie dormant underground in an ecosystem
 * What is a witches broom?
 * Name for deformity
 * What is girdling?
 * Explained
 * What is gall?
 * Explained
 * What is exudation?
 * Rewrote link
 * I don't think that works as an explanation; I was thinking of diarrhoea and vomiting,  rather than the loss of fluids via pores and wounds. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's... not what it is though? Exudation is just a step in the process of inflammation that is caused by the exposure.
 * I would insert a comma after "in addition to other clinical signs"
 * Good call
 * the last sentence of invasiveness is a bit clumsy/ambiguous. I would say something like: insect herbivores have been introduced as biocontrol agents outside their native range. The most common are ... Insert
 * Split the sentence

Uses
 * what is the word that comes after "a standard component of" (my software doesn't know)
 * Changed to "ancient concoctions called theriacs". They're considered cure-alls but I feel like that term wouldn't be much more helpful
 * I don't understand the sentence these flower parts can be crushed, making a yellow green or brown bean powder with apparent oil droplets. The word apparent, should that be visible? I find it somewhat difficult to visualise a powder with oil droplets, but maybe that's just lack of imagination.
 * Yes, that's exactly correct. These parts are very high in oil and it is retained when they are crushed. I've changed to "visible", but I think that "powder" is not really the correct word for the product (makes it sound too fine). The image does a good job of illustrating what it actually is; herba hyperici is not homogenous, it's kind of a mix of the flower parts and excreted oil. I'm struggling to find an appropriate term that more accurately represents what the product really consists of and would greatly appreciate suggestions.
 * I would ignore the section title of the source,  and simply describe it as crushed land fragments  with oil droplets. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Simplified
 * In terms of the medical aspects, I've only looked at the titles and publication dates of the papers that were cited. You typically want to cite reviews, medical textbooks or clinical guidelines from the last five years (WP:MEDRS). Sometimes, especially for smaller research areas, that might not be possible and you have to rely on reviews from a bit longer ago. I see there was a 2008 Cochrane review, which is one of the gold standards of reviews, so it might still be usable just about. I see the citation 58 to the National Centre for complementary and integrative health stems from 2016,. Have they updated their website? Some of the sources on interactions and side effects seem to be primary sources that are quite old. Can you replace them with more recent secondary sources? What makes drugs.com reliable?
 * I've removed the second paragraph from of traditional medicine that relied on drugs.com. It was a holdover from before we started to work on the article and I've been waffling on whether to cut it. Drugs.com does not seem to be a great source after looking at some other discussions on it, so I've removed it as a reference. It mostly duplicated other, better sources anyways, so not much of a loss.
 * The NCCIH did update in 2020, all the info in the article appears to be the same though so I've just changed the ref to reflect that.
 * I will do a deeper look into some more secondary sources, but the best one seems to be that NCCIH reference and I don't want to rely too heavily on that one site.

I still have to do a spot check, check the image licensing and delve further into the medical sourcing, but this should give you a good start. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * To add, WP:accessibility is not part of the GA criteria. Still,  it would be good if  the article were to be made more accessible. You can have a look at WP:ACCIM  further description of how to add alts 2 images,  set relative sizes,  how to avoid sandwiching.  Finally WP:NOHIDE  indicates that tables should not be hidden by default. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Femke, some great input so far. I'll get started on it here shortly and will then start to work on some of the accessibility points as well. Fritzmann (message me) 15:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've responded to all of the prose review so far; again, very grateful for the perceptive feedback. I just had a few questions that I've put in my bulleted responses, and will definitely need to do work on the medical sourcing, but I will wait to do that until you've completed the review so we aren't working past each other. Fritzmann (message me) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost final bits of review:
 * They only successfully create galls on species in the genus Hypericum --> I do not think the source supports this statement, as a there is a second host species mentioned.
 * Removed, I don't think MtBotany will mind.
 * Second sentence about toxicity in livestock seem to be sited completely to 2 primary papers about sheep. Furthermore, there is close paraphrasing. Are there secondary sources on this about more species of animals?
 * The start of the second paragraph seems based on the source about horses. This doesn't become clear till the third sentence.
 * The bit on antidepressant use is decent. I think you can leave out the 2008 review, as the other reviews are more recent and come to similar conclusions. The sentence about St John's wort being  prescribed for children And adolescents in Germany is a bit outdated.  is there a more recent review about this? https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14936  says it's  considered a drug in various European countries.
 * The interactions part needs significant work. Many of the sources are much too old, and newer reviews have been published. You could try and rewrite using https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14936, https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article/71/1/129/6122037?login=false, and the NIH source. Furthermore, this name dropping drugs  isn't that insightful.  what are the drugs used for? The NIH source does say.
 * The sentence about dementia failed verification.
 * Citation number 70 (Zang) seems to be a primary source about mice.
 * I did a few other spots checks that did pan out, but given the fact that there were problems with quite a few of the checks I did, I'll do another spot check after these issues are addressed. You may want to double check text written by others. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the toxicity and interactions sections. They are somewhat shorter, but I think they provide a sufficiently broad summary. I feel that more in-depth discussions of the interactions may be warranted, but would probably fit better on the hyperforin or hypericin pages. My apologies for the tardiness of my responses, in all honesty I've been procrastinating on these parts that I'm not as comfortable with in favor of simpler work. I'm happy to respond to any other input you have. Fritzmann (message me) 01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about time, I'm in no hurry.
 * Did you double check for text-source integrity issues? In the new text on medication, I checked two statements. One is the reason why St John's wort interacts (the source does not say it's because of allergenic properties), and the second is the severity of side effects. I don't think the source makes the distinction between more and less severe side effects. About breakthrough bleeding, it seems to downplay this, as it's a very common mild side effect of oral contraceptives. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the statement on allergenic properties? I'm pretty sure that was in the old text because it is not there any more. About the side effects, I've changed the wording from "severe" to "rare", since the latter listed ones are grouped together in the source as occurring at a much lower rate. Fritzmann (message me) 19:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement on allergenic properties already. I was wondering if you've double checked for further text source integrity issues? I've done two spot checks, which both came up with clear issues. I'm willing to do a third, but if I keep on finding issues I'll need to fail the article, which would be a shame. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'll comb through today. I think at this point, pretty much every part of the old article has been rewritten, but a thorough text-source check at this point on my ends seems more than warranted. Fritzmann (message me) 15:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've double checked some areas I had suspicions might be problematic, and made some improvements. Mostly just removing absolutes and adding context. I also changed a few references for more academically sound sources. I hope I've been thorough enough, but everything I found on that sweep was minor enough that I feel confident everything glaring has been taken care of. Fritzmann (message me) 02:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I final 5-source spot check didn't come up with further issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)