Talk:Hypericum aciferum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum aciferum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 07:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll review this article within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann2002 I've looked over the article and written some comments below. I've also taken the liberty of fixing a couple dead links. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The body doesn't mention "St John's wort" by name, which it probably should somewhere.

• I've changed the link to go to the genus Hypericum, St John's wort is just the common name for the whole genus.

• Its flowers are also heterostylous, a trait which within the Hypericum genus is unique to three species in section Adenotrias, and means that the species can exhibit one of two flower types on different plants. – Can these be reordered so it's easier to follow?

• Reordered and split

• A year should be mentioned for the plant micro-reserve

• Good idea, added

Etymology

• Of the two uses of "possibly", could it be specified how much support these hypotheses have?

• I've taken the "possibly" directly from both sources, I don't think I can comment on that without veering into OR

Description

• This section feels like a list of facts more than an overview. It's not a high priority, but it wouldn't hurt to reword this a little bit so the sentences transition better

• Such are the pitfalls of biology articles, it's certainly my least favorite part to write

• "Shrublet" links to shrub, but that article doesn't define this term. Is there a better term (subshrub?), or is that a deficiency in the shrub article?

• From my understanding, they aren't exactly interchangeable. Shrublet is more like "dwarf shrub" while subshrub is more "almost shrub". It looks like the shrub article could use work in general, I think that's just another hole it has

• The whole plant lacks hairs and dark glands. – I don't understand what this is saying

• I've reworded it and linked the technical terms it refers to

• A lone paragraph doesn't need its own subsection.

• Removed

Taxonomy

• This first paragraph is a little tough for me to read as a layman. Can it be simplified or spelled-out a little?

• For sure, I've given it another crack. This species has a complicated early history, so please let me know if there are any parts of it that are still unclear

• The use of "syndrome" is confusing here, and it's unclear whether it's an official term. Assuming I'm reading it correctly, I'd switch it to something like "The primary reason for this was that the flowers had convergent adaptations, which Robson called an 'Elodes syndrome'. While section Adenotrias also had convergent adaptations"...

• Yes, absolutely

• Do we know why it was retained in the genus at the time if it also "possessed the syndrome"?

• Robson doesn't give explicit reasoning for it in his monograph, but it was pretty hit or miss as to whether a species would get dropped from Hypericum if it had Elodes syndrome

Distribution, habitat, and ecology

• It is very rare – This is vague. Is there any more context for it? I see there are statistics in the conservation section.

• It's been referred to as a "rare plant" in the sources, but since that's also a specified category for conservation I've just cut the clause

• Despite being much less frequently found, it has a habitat that is highly similar to that of H. russeggeri and H. aegypticum – It's not clear why these facts are connected. Would it be correct to flip it like "Despite having a habitat similar to that of H. russeggeri and H. aegypticum, it is found much less frequently"

• That's absolutely correct, and a much better phrasing

• What does it mean by "A part of the population"

• Population is a biology term that just means all of the individuals of a species in one area - I'm not sure how to say that better but I've linked the term and am open to suggestions

• This rather abruptly switches from natural growth to man-made propagation. I'd suggest at least a paragraph break

• Split out

Conservation

• where it was again marked as endangered – This makes it sound like it stopped being endangered for a while

• Reworded

• Beginning in 2015, most of the population of Hypericum aciferum is contained – Sets up past tense but then uses present tense

• Fixed

• Are the last two sentences in this section connected? Right now they're presented as unrelated facts

• I was trying to avoid OR by implying that the re-classification was because of the PMR; the IUCN doesn't say that, they just give the new classification. Let me know if what I've changed it to is a decent compromise

Uses

• This section is fine, assuming no other information exists.

References

• What makes Cretan Flora a reliable source?

• The principal contributor is Armin Jagel, who's a German botanist that's gotten published in Flora the oldest botanical journal. I've only used it for the specific epithet, and only then because all of the rest of the info on the page lines up with more legit sources
• It's the online portal for the official micro-reserve project in Crete. It's published and maintained by the same authors as the two articles I've cited on the plant-micro reserve,

• Rock Garden Plants Database seems to be self-published by Pavel Slabý. Has Slabý had works about botany published by high quality publishers?

• Slaby has published in botany, including this Czech article published in Preslia. I was initially dubious of the source, but he has been extensively used by several other databases and botanical societies that are much more mainstream. The Ontario Hardy Plant Society cites his database as foundational to their seed propagation efforts, and his database has been cited in USDA Forest Service reports as well.

• Sustainability seems to have been reliable at the time of publication (per the Norwegian Scientific Index), so it should be fine, but I will say to be very careful with MDPI journals. They're a mixed bag at best.

• Thanks for the heads up

• Normally I'd comment on the number of primary sources used in this article (namely ones where they're cited to support their own findings instead of citing sources that discuss the findings), but it seems necessary in this case given the limited number of sources.

Spot checks:

• Krigas et al (2021) – Good.
• Meseguer, Aldasoro & Sanmartín (2013) – This chart doesn't mention aciferum, but I'm not well-versed in taxonomy, so is there something I'm missing?

• The chart has Adenotrias, which is the parent taxon that H. aciferum belongs to

• Plants of the World Online – All three uses good.
• Thanos (2007) – Good. A more recent source would be preferable for something like this, but this is an obscure subject so I realize that's probably asking too much.

@Thebiguglyalien: think I've got everything! If anything else comes up let me know, or if the fixes need some more work. Thanks for a great review! Fritzmann (message me) 00:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]