Talk:Hypericum grandifolium/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 03:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fritzmann2002, I'll review this. Will have comments up in a few days at most. Esculenta (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here are my thoughts: Esculenta (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• link petals, seed capsule, invasive, California, ornamental plant, parasitized, Hypericum

• All linked

• might want to add non-breaking spaces to short-form binomials to avoid line breaks (in the cladogram too)

• Done

• "oedemas" is British English spelling, but it seems the rest of the article is in Am. English

• Switched, I had no idea that was British English; thought perhaps it was the more proper medical term

Etymology

• " Large-leaved St John's wort" common names should be lower case

• Done, good catch

• to meet best practices, Spanish common names should be in lang templates

• Done, also for the Latin words

Description

• link nodes, gland, sepal, stamen, petals, fascicles, styles, stigma, seed capsule

• Done

• it's mentioned that Hypericum grandifolium differs from H. androsaemum by having dry fruit; could you add a few more words to describe a "wet" fruit (I'm assuming it's "sticky" or something?)

• A brief aside has been added

• "It has at times been confused with Hypericum × inodorum by some botanists." so how are they distinguished?

• Pretty much the same ways as for hircinum and androsaemum, so I've just mentioned that inodorum is an intermediate between those two to avoid repetition

• link essential oil

• Done

• giving value for essential oil yield is meaningless unless the method used to achieve this number is also given

• I've just removed the clause; I honestly don't think it would be useful either way

Taxonomy

• "in insula Tenerife," the short snippet quote doesn't really add anything, imo

• On a second look, agreed

• I checked Choisy's original description and it seems he had a bit more to say about the species that's not currently acknowledged in the article: "Caulis fruticosus, erectus, rubricans, teres, ramosus; rami obliqui" ("Stem woody, upright, reddening, cylindrical, branched; branches oblique".)

• Thank you! I totally missed that, the line break must have thrown me off.

• I was asked in another GAN to provide a source for my Latin translation, which I think is a good idea (see Buellia frigida). FYI, ChatGPT4's translation of the Latin text is ""Hypericum with a cylindrical stem, with large clasping leaves, with the calyx bent back onto the stalk, with the corolla somewhat linear", which I suppose is equivalent to the translation you've given, but with the technical words converted to more understandable terms.

• Great idea, I've included a note. GPT-3 gives a more technical description, which I actually prefer. After all, the original description is highly technical so it maintains that meaning.

• link synonym, Norman Robson, section

• Done

• the article layout differs slightly from that recommended in the WP:Plants article template (not complaining, just mentioning; I sense an effort to avoid image squeezing)

• Images are always the sticking point, so yes I tend to prefer to arrange based on the appearance of the end product over the proscribed order (until I take something to FAC and get mauled by the MOS, that is)

• shouldn't those alternative names/synonyms go in the taxobox?

• My personal preference is to exclude synonyms from the taxobox, especially when there are numerous names with varying degrees of credibility and reasons for synonymy. My justification is similar to that of removing the "supported by" nations from battle/war infoboxes: sometimes you need full text to convey complex topics accurately

Ecology

• this section also includes habitat and distribution, so I think a more inclusive section title would be appropriate

• Done, it's a bad habit of mine to lump them together

• link naturalized, cuttings

• Done

• "Hypericum grandifolium often grows alongside the shrub Ageratina adenophora." is this just in its native habitats, or also true in California?

• Actually just in California by the looks of the report (or that is the only place the report studied, more accurately)

• "The species is capable of reproducing through its" clarify which species is referred to here

• Done

• Is CA the only place it's been reported from outside of its native distribution?

• I mention the other countries it's been naturalized in and is invasive to, but California is the only one that has solid records on it I could find.

Uses

• one has to be very careful about ascribing medicinal benefits to plant extracts. All three sources are primary, and so do not meet WP:MEDRS standards. I think the header should be "Research" rather than "Uses", as the latter implies that these extracts are currently being used, when it's clear that these are the results of preliminary research. The statements that the extracts have potential against tumor cells and cervical cancer should add a clear qualifier that these are results from laboratory tests

• Agreed, I struggle with this section the most for this genus. Sometimes they are very well studied and attested, other times it is much less established.

• formatting etc. of citations isn't in the GA criteria, but I'll point out that some of the References could use more bibliographic information, e.g.

• Bonkanka et al. 2008 could have doi & pages added
• Choisy 1821 could have publisher & location
• Hooker 1844 & 1857 are missing volume, pages
• etc.

• add cats "Plants described in 1821; Flora of California (or maybe some US invasive species cat?)

• Done

• not GA criteria: add this species to List of invasive plant species in California

• Done

• all four images are relevant, have suitable captions, and are properly licensed

Summary

@Esculenta: I've responded to concerns to the best of my ability, please let me know if there is anything else I can work on! (no rush on this, I'd like to claim this guy for the next round of Wikicup lol) Fritzmann (message me) 14:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• ok, in that spirit, here's some more suggestions:

• how about using doi:10.1016/j.jep.2008.10.031 in the "Research" section? Apparently, extracts from the plant have an anti-depressive effect in mice. I noticed that Prado et al. 2002 is listed in the bibliography but is not actually used as a source; I think this is a precursor study that could be cited as background if discussing the more recent work. doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(01)00393-2 might also be cited as a precursor study.

• Love it, added a sentence.

• other bibliography entries not used as sources: Silva et al. 2021; Teixeira & Monteiro 2017

• Not sure why these weren't included; may be that an edit got eaten somewhere. The Silva one didn't have anything to include so I've removed it. The Teixeira article has some really granular info in the cellular anatomy of the leaves - I'm on the fence about including it. Highly technical, not sure what your thoughts are.

• I asked a "chatty friend" to summarise the Teixeira article for me and tell me any info about the species in question. Feel free to use any or none of what it suggests: "Hypericum grandifolium is characterized by bifacial leaves with a mesophyll thickness below 112 µm, placing it in a distinct group compared to species with thicker mesophyll. The plant falls into a category with spongy parenchyma thickness values below 60 µm, different from those with higher values. Micromorphological analysis reveals differences in leaf characteristics such as epidermal cell walls, epicuticular waxes, and stomata, which are important for species differentiation and quality control in commercial samples."
• @Esculenta: yeah, about what I was anticipating. Just leaf structure measurements, I don't think they're particularly useful to a lay audience unless other identifying info is scarce (or if the leaf morphology actually distinguishes it from otherwise identical species)

• this study doi:10.1007/s11418-010-0473-y discusses effects of H. grandifolium extracts on antinociceptive activity in mice

• Added

• according to doi:10.1016/j.bse.2007.07.004, the common name malfurada is also used for H. foliosum, H. glandulosum, and H. perforatum
• Not GA: common name redirects should be made for malfurada grande, and corazoncillo, and maybe a set index article for malfurada (? not sure on this last one; I'm thinking of somthing like e.g. Inkcap)

• Definitely on my to-do list, will take care of that in the next week or so probably

• doi:10.1016/j.actao.2007.06.005 this article says of H. grandifolium: "These species can be considered opportunistic and helophytic, appearing as important components of the vegetation in areas under other laurel forest disturbances such as fire (Arevalo et al., 2000) and canopy gaps (Arevalo and Fernandez-Palacios, 1998)." which looks like it could be mentioned in the ecology section

• The "helophytic" claim is dubious to me - it looks like the other species are but H. grandifolium doesn't overwinter under water. I've included a mention that it is a colonizing species in areas disturbed by wildfire.

• doi:10.2307/3235826 looks like it has some tidbits that could be used to add to the Hab. + Dist. section, namely its frequency in Tererife, average temperature and temperature range of typical habitats, precipitation mean and average

• Can't access this one, unfortunately. Doesn't look like TWL has it either.

• this article is a review article that mentions some of the biological activities of H. grandifolium (and we like secondary sources!)

• Included

Esculenta (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: should be good now! Thank you for finding these new articles; may I ask how you have full access to Elsevier? I find a lot of paywalls often stymie my research efforts, and advice on that front is always welcome. Fritzmann (message me) 23:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta: any other suggestions? I'm very grateful for all of the additional articles you've helped me incorporate. Fritzmann (message me) 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That's all I got :) Please check my final copyedits for accuracy. (Still need to remove the unused Teixeira & Monteiro source.) Spot-checks of source-article compliance look ok, so I think the article meets all of the good article critera; promoting now. Esculenta (talk) 16:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)