Talk:Hypericum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I immediately noticed that there is a citation needed tag. This should be addressed immediately unless this was a mistake.

Contacted uploader of the image and asked to get in contact with him so that I can ask about the issues regarding its identification. Fritzmann2002 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Genus name needs to be italicized in the second sentence of the lead.

Done Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Hypericum is unusual for a genus of its size because a worldwide taxonomic monograph[2] was produced for it by N.Robson (working at the Natural History Museum, London, UK, between 1977 and 2012)." So why is there no taxonomy and evolution section? This needs further explaining with a detailed paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to say how long he was working at the Natural Museum either.

Removed unnecessary date. Researching its taxonomy and evolution for paragraph. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Robson recognizes 36 sections within Hypericum." This needs clarification. It should be clear as to what these 36 sections are. Species groups perhaps? The genus name also needs italicizing.
• The lead discusses its distribution, but there is no distribution and habitat section. Expand.
• "...."though they are also commonly just called hypericum". That's their genus name anyway so how is this relevant?

Removed this. Also researching the origin of the nickname for a sentence after that. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The marsh St. John's-worts are nowadays separated into the genus Triadenum". This can be better explained in the taxonomy section if you make one.
• The third paragraph discusses the description of these plants, yet there is no description. As of now, this article is far from being comprehensive and this must be addressed. I'll give you some time since it may take long, but I believe the editor should have taken more time to work on this.

Moving description into its own section. Working to find better and easier to read information for said section. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overall, there should not be any citations in the lead.

Would you say that the lead includes the second paragraph? Either way, I will be moving the N. Robson bit in with a taxonomy and evolution section. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and that sounds fine.

• No information in regards to its relationships with other plant genera either?
• There is hardly any information about its ecology. There is some, but it's brief and as usual, needs expansion.
• The lead itself should have some expansion. I recommend addressing this once you have dealt with all the issues above and give it a rewrite. Condense the taxonomy and give a briefing over the other topics (and please mention its role in medicine).
• "Numerous hybrids and cultivars have been developed for use in horticulture, such as H. × moserianum[5] (H. calycinum × H. patulum), H. 'Hidcote'[6] and H. 'Rowallane'.[7]" This should be further explained.
• "The beetles Chrysolina quadrigemina, Chrysolina hyperici and the St. John's-wort Root Borer (Agrilus hyperici) like to feed" A bit too wordy (the text in bold), so you should condense it down to just "feed".
• "Common St. John's-wort (H. perforatum) has long been used in herbalism." Nothing wrong with this particular sentence, but the plants name has already been wiki-linked and I don't think it's necessary to include its scientific name in parenthesis when you already have.

Done and done Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• More to come. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• The second and third paragraph of "uses of Hypercium" is entirely unreferenced.
• ....only known food plants of the caterpillar of the Treble-bar" Poorly written.
• "Justifying this view with the then-current doctrine of signatures, herbalist William Coles (1626–1662)[14] wrote in the 17th century that" It's quite awkward how there is no full stop or anything at the end of this sentence. Perhaps this little friend could be appropriate... ":"
• The plant health problems section needs expansion or merged into a section.
• Taxonomy and cultivars are both unreferenced and both need expansion.
• Ref no. 1 is incomplete.

Replaced reference Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ref no. 2 is prone to link rot. Also incomplete and poorly reformatted.
• Ref no. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are incorrectly titled, incomplete and poorly reformatted.
• Ref no. 14 needs a page number. Also incomplete.
• Ref no. 17 and 18 are incorrectly cited and formatted.

At this point, this article is far from meeting the GA criteria and needs to undergo a major revamp. I have multiple options:

• You perform a magical wonder and solve all these issues.
• You ask to withdraw this article so you can work on it before nominating it again.
• You choose to never respond to this review and I close it.
• If you do not respond, I am giving seven days (excluding weekends as you have left a notice in regards) for you to reply, otherwise I'm failing it. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Many apologies. Life happened. I see all of the things that can be fixed before someone (or myself) re-nominate the article. I apologize for using your time on a nomination that, now that I look back on it, should not have been made. I will work to fix these problems and request that the article be withdrawn. Fritzmann2002 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am working on solving these problems within the article, and would ask that you bear with my questions on a few of them, as I will be responding on this page. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. You don't have to apologise, all of us will do it at one point. I'll have to "fail it" to conclude the review, but I'll still view it as a withdraw. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, NCBI has over 2,400 journals to go over so it can provide plenty of information you need. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that the medical properties is pretty comprehensive and detailed, so you probably don't have to add anymore information unless you find more. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Failing it is OK with me. If I re-nominate it, would you like me to contact you or would you be alright with someone else reviewing it? Up to you. Fritzmann2002 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You can contact me if you would like. As for someone else reviewing it, it's good for an extra pair of eyes so that's all fine. If you want I can give any additional comments while someone else is reviewing it (just in case they miss anything). Depending on the reviewer, the article could either be FA ready or not if you intend on taking it that far. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)