Talk:Hypericum sechmenii

Featured articleHypericum sechmenii is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 12, 2024.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 5, 2021Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 15, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
November 20, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 4, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that despite containing crystals and chemicals which are thought to deter herbivory, Hypericum sechmenii is still under threat of extinction from grazing?
Current status: Featured article


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum sechmenii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 07:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


First round

[edit]

Sorry for all the red. Comments below on items in order of occurrence in the article. The ones in red made it an immediate fail of GA Review.

  • In general
    • Spell out the entire species name the first time it occurs in each paragraph. Done
    • Take a look at the overuse of pronouns, especially at the beginning of sentences ("it," "they"). Might be a key to combine some sentences. Description section might still have a clunky clause here or there but I've cut most of the repetitive pronouns.
    • Some items need to be written in a less technical way. Use alternate words that mean the same thing as botanical terms, for example. See WP:TECHNICAL for help with this. Almost all jargon sorted out. What remains is either explained, or at least wikilinked to another article which goes into sufficient detail.
  • Species box
    • Fair Use claimed image has not yet been reviewed for acceptable rationale by a patroller or administrator, so it could be a copyright violation (it is currently in hidden category Wikipedia non-free files for NFUR review) - would be better to remove it until it approved
    • Images (including map) should have a good alt for accessibility. See MOS:ACCESS and MOS:ALT. Images have new alts
    • Plant authority doesn't need year. Year removed
    • Add source citation for information in distribution map. citation added
  • Lead
    • The Lead section "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." This lead does not do that and includes a bit that isn't covered in the article. It should also stand on its own. Lead needs work. See MOS:LEAD. I've revised and expanded the lead to be more comprehensive, crossing it off the list for now but it will probably still need editing
  • Description
    • I find the plant Description hard to read and clunky because it's all one big paragraph. Should break up the paragraphs. Paragraphs broken into general + stems, leaves, inflorescence, seeds, and roots + pollen.
    • If you read the description without an image, will you be able to visualize what the plant looks like? For example, colors of most plant parts are not mentioned. Is that information in the sources? All colors and descriptors from sources included. While the sources don't elaborate too much on the exact colors of the plant parts, I didn't want to extrapolate from the images provided with my own words as that would be original research, so I just used what the sources provided.
    • Cellular characteristics might be better divided up and put with the plant parts to which they are referring. Done, with additional info added.
    • Pollen image should have a good alt for accessibility. See MOS:ACCESS and MOS:ALT.
    • Fair Use claimed image of pollen grains has not yet been reviewed for acceptable rationale by a patroller or administrator, so it could be a copyright violation (it is currently in hidden category Wikipedia non-free files for NFUR review) - would be better to remove it until it approved
    • Unclear which parts of most of the first part of the description came from which source since there are two at the end of a string of sentences. Please clarify with inline citations. More inline citations added to clarify where information came from.
    • Similar species I just removed the table. I don't think it was really within the necessary scope of the article anyways, but I'd be happy to add in the similar species information in text form if you think that would add to the article.
      • Table source not cited.
      • Table could be considered plagiarism from the source. (I found it an looked at it.)
      • Table inflorescence and sepal rows have inaccurate numbers.
  • Taxonomy
    • I would move the taxonomy section and group information from the Lead down to here. Also need reference for that. Taxonomy information all moved here
    • Not necessary to add, but might be good to note where the holotype specimen is stored now. Added
  • Distribution and habitat
    • Information on caespitose isn't the "habitat," it's the growing "habit" and should be in the Description section. Moved
    • The information here about the holotype may go better in the Taxonomy section when you are discussing it there. Just that sentence. Lat/Lon coordinates might be good in a footnote rather than inline. Seems to affect readability and might be an issue for screen readers. Moved to taxonomy section
    • Move the last two sentences in the first paragraph of Distribution and habitat to a Conservation section (see PLANTS project Taxon Template for where that section should go). Made and expanded on conservation
  • References
    • Robson reference, use sentence capitalization for the name, not all caps. Fixed
    • Refs from hypericum.myspecies.info, IPNI, and POWO probably should be modified to go with however the websites suggest their citations be. Here are the template fillers I use for IPNI and POWO, although by all means this article does not have to use them. Fixed, couldn't find suggestion for MySpecies, if you can find it please let me know.

<ref name = IPNI-Hypericum-sechmenii>
{{Cite web
| last1         = International Plant Names Index (IPNI) | author-link1  = International Plant Names Index
| year          = 2020
| publisher     = The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; and, Australian National Botanic Gardens
| website       = IPNI (www.ipni.org)
| title         = _____
| url           = https://www.ipni.org/n/_____/
| access-date   = _____
}}
</ref>

<ref name = POWO-Hypericum-sechmenii>
{{Cite web 
| last1        = POWO | author-link1 = Plants of the World Online
| year         = 2019 
| title        = _____
| url          = http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/_____/
| website      = Plants of the World Online (powo.science.kew.org) 
| publisher    = [[Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew]]
| access-date  = _____
}}
</ref>

—Eewilson (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:, thank you for the review, I appreciate its thoroughness. I'll be sure to address all of the issues before I attempt to re-nominate the article. If anything else comes to mind please let me know, I will be playing around with the article in my sandbox to try to get it into shape over the next few weeks. Hopefully everything will be sorted out by then! Best wishes, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 16:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Absolutely and you're welcome. Don't be discouraged. It's a good start. :) –Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: I'm following changes. Hint: description of plant characteristics should go in order from bottom to top of plant (roots, stems, leaves.... fruit). —Eewilson (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I have taken care of everything but the fair use stuff on the images, on which I am totally stumped. I have no idea where to go to have someone verify whether they are fair use nor what that process looks like. I've taken care of everything else on the list, and even if the article still isn't GA-worthy, it is definitely in much better shape now. As such, I'd appreciate a second look at the changes I've made whenever you have time. Again, thank you for your help, this has been a very fulfilling process so far! Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Great! Would you go ahead and submit it for another GA nomination? I can pick it up for review. —Eewilson (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum sechmenii/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 21:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


@Fritzmann2002: I'll start looking at this tomorrow. My brain and eyes are a bit fried for the day. —Eewilson (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1.a. Lead and Description sections

[edit]

@Fritzmann2002: Started the review. If you can work on these while I take a look at Taxonomy, Distribution and habitat, Ecology, and Conservation, that will be great.

  • Review of GA Criteria 1.a. "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct."
    • LEAD:  Done
      • 1. Use Template:Lang around common name (accessibility). It will italicize it, but it should. It will then be bold and italics, which is fine.
      • 2. Need a source citation for the common name in the lead.
      • 3. In this sentence, "It was described by Turkish botanists Atila Ocak and Onur Koyuncu, who named....", the comma isn't needed between Koyuncu and who.
      • 4. "which grows in clusters of stems which grow from" - remove the "which grow" redundancy
      • 5. "in 2006, and has since" - no comma after 2006 because you are not adding a subject, are just using the same subject ("The species was... and has....")
    • DESCRIPTION:  Done So, in the first paragraph, some of which I'll repeat here with comments, there are things that as an average reader I just wouldn't understand.
      • 1. First two sentences are fine.
      • 2. Each stem also has a thin cuticle and a single-layer epidermis.
        • It's good to Wikilink "cuticle" and "epidermis," and if I want more information on them, I can click on those links. However, I shouldn't have to click on the links to understand what I'm reading in here.
          • Better: Each stem has a protective film (called a cuticle)..., etc.
          • Is the cuticle on top of the epidermis? As I read this, it makes it sound like the cuticle comes first (from the inside out) followed by the epidermis on top, yet the diagrams on the linked pages show the cuticle as the very top layer.
      • 3. There is a periderm beneath the epidermis that is composed of several layers of dead cells.
        • Better: There is a bark-like layer beneath the epidermis called a periderm which is composed of several layers of dead cells.
      • 4. These peridermal cells are oval shaped and contain suberin, a waxy substance that helps to waterproof the stems.
        • Good
      • 5. Some cells in the periderm also have druse crystals, which are thought to deter herbivory because of their toxicity.
      • 6. Go through the rest of the description and see if the same kind of thing needs to be done. I'm seeing it's usually clear, but there may be others. Looks mostly good.
      • 7. Put plant parts in the following order (per PLANTS project taxon template): Roots, Stems, Leaves, Inflorescences, Seeds. I think you have them all in that order except the roots are at the end. Once you move roots, make sure the intro to Description works smoothly. —Eewilson (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

[edit]
  • @Fritzmann2002: I added a glossary term for vitta with a redirect so that redlink will be gone. :) Vitta (botany) redirects to Glossary of botanical terms#vitta. I saw you made some changes this morning. Are you ready for me to look at them or are they in progress? —Eewilson (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Eewilson:, Good morning, I apologize for a bit of delay, Superbowl festivities took up my attention for most of yesterday. Yes, the lead and description should be all changed and I think the other sections are ready for a look as well. I'll hopefully get to fixing the references and any other changes that need to be done by the end of the day today but I'll try to check in throughout the day as well. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Fritzmann2002: Good morning to you! I read in the instructions for GA review that I, as the reviewer, am allowed to make lightweight changes to help it along, so in the Lead and Description, I'm doing some final tweaks on sentence structure and wording. No rush on doing your changes during work or whatever keeps you busy during the daytime. I'll probably have more ready for you tonight. Now that I've checked the reference availability and things that need to be done with them, I'll move on to validating that they provide evidence for the statements. —Eewilson (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fritzmann2002: Found a link for the source below: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2349860/
  • Robson, Norman K.B. (31 October 1996). "Studies in the genus Hypericum L. (Guttiferae) 6. Sections 20. Myriandra to 28. Elodes". Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, Botany Series. 26 (2): 75–271.
 Done Please add this url to your citation template as well as the access-date and suggestion via=Biodiversity Heritage Library. If there's an issn for Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, Botany Series, that should be added as well. At first, I was going to ask you where to find a copy of the source, but then I found it. Good old BHL. You can also add param author-link=Norman Robson (botanist). That one is also a suggestion, but I find it handy. Anytime your source is available online, url it so your reader can easily find it. —Eewilson (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Format and Access Review

[edit]

All  Done

  • Reference "Robson 1996":
    • See previous comments in last change, above.
    • Because this paper is so long, the citations should have page numbers. This means putting the "Robson 1996" reference down in the References section and calling it using the Reference template with the page parameter. We don't want the reader to have to look at 142 pages to find what we are referring to.
    • In the reference itself, page numbers should be 75–217, not 75–271.
  • Reference "MySpecies":
    • "Hypericum sechmenii Nomenclature". hypericum.myspecies.info. Retrieved 2018-11-17.
      • In the website param, might be pleasing (and descriptive) to add "Hypericum online" and put "hypericum.myspecies.info" in parentheses, like this website=Hypericum online (hypericum.myspecies.info).
      • On English Wikipedia, you don't need the language parameter with "en". It doesn't hurt if you leave it. Just ignores it.
  • Reference ":77":
    • Xiwen, Li; Robson, Norman (1994). Flora of China (PDF). Science Press & Missouri Botanical Garden. pp. 13: 2–35.
      • Same comment about citation with page number, or if not a single page number, then leave it as it is.
      • The one I downloaded from the PDF link provided is dated 2007, not 1994.
      • Add website=Flora of China (flora.huh.harvard.edu).
      • I think in the pages parameter, the 13: should be 13 in a volume parameter.
  • In general, make sure date formats for access-date and date are consistent (I personally like the format 7 February 2021 so I don't have to figure out what the numbers mean, but 2021-02-07 is fine and seems to be used on Wikipedia as well).
  • Make sure there are ISSN and doi numbers if they exist.
  • If the doi links are free, then put doi-access=free. If any of the urls require a subscription or registration, put url-access=registration or url-access=subscription (I think those are the correct param values). —Eewilson (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

@Fritzmann2002: More fun. I made some minor changes to the prose of the lead and Description. Read over it to make sure I didn't remove content.

Content issues and questions below.

1.  Not done Do the leaves have hair?

The way the species description is written makes it sound like only the stems are hairless, but it could also be construed that the entire plant is hairless. Could use a second opinion

2.  Not done Are the pale glands on the surfaces of the leaves and the black glands on the margins visible to the naked eye? Magnifying glass? Or microscope? Do they serve a special function? Is that known.

No information on this, just that there are glands and what color they are
@Fritzmann2002:  Possible Look in the Hypericum article, Description section. It talks about them there. It appears glands are something common among the entire genus and you can glean info from here for a sentence or two about them. The source being used is Taxonomy and Chemotaxonomy of the Genus Hypericum (2011). Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.  Not done I think any converted mm to inches would be more useful at 2 decimal places instead of 3 (e.g., 0.08 and 0.20 instead 0.079 and 0.197). Although I question the value of converting less than 10 millimeters at all since it is such a small measurement. I tried to find what Wikipedia MOS say about that... do you know? I mean, don't remove the mm to inches conversions yet. I can check with someone else on that if you don't know.

I honestly have no idea on this; I think the article would be better with just the millimeter measurements but I know that the standard is to have both metric and imperial.
@Fritzmann2002:  Done In scientific articles, we don't have to convert unless there's a good reason to do so, so for the mm ones, I took the liberty of removing the conversions. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4.  Not done Is there a base number and have there been chromosome counts?

So there are ploidy counts for the section, but different species have different numbers. I could say "members of Adenosepalum have either x,y, or z number of chromosomes, but I feel like that could be a little confusing.
 Works for me Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5.  Done Similar species need to be in the article, but don't use a table that looks like what's in the source. Facts are facts, but how the facts are presented can be plagiarism. Describe what is different among the most similar species.

6.  Done Are there any current taxonomic disagreements as to whether or not this should be a species or in which Section, Subsection it should reside, or anything else?

No recorded taxonomic disagreements, it's been established where the species belongs

7. Not done for now Possible additional image:

Corymb
Just not quite sure if/where this would fit or what to put for the thumb/alt, if you had a place in mind to fit it in then by all means
 Works for me Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8.  Done Are leaves simple or compound? Alternate, opposite, whorled?

Elaborated just a bit on this, esp. in the similar species section, and have put in all available info on the leaves

9.  Done Page Aestivation (botany) talks only about parts of a flower, not "densely overlap"ping leaves.

Fixed

10. Not done – please clarify Is the midrib distinct on the adaxial or abaxial face or both?

I could use a hand with this one; I don't think this is in the species descriptions, but I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to put something incorrect
Not necessary. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11.  Done Taxonomy - last paragraph: "After Hypericum sechmenii was described..." (this was in 2009)... "it was then placed into the overall framework of the genus...by Robson in a 1996 addition to his monograph." Kind of a timeline problem here.

It appears this was an issue on MySpecies' end; they neglected to mention the addendum date in their page of sources which is where the info actually is
Ha. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12.  Done Change "December of 2009" to "December 2009". Change "46th volume" to "volume 46"

no Disagree Check again because I think these are still there. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13.  Done Should the P in Eskişehir province be capitalized? Verify.

P is capitalized in other articles mentioning Eskişehir as well as in the article on the province itself
 Question: You left the P uncapitalized in the text. Is that what you meant to do? Just checking. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14.  Done "above sea level" is redundant so you can remove that phrase. The measurements imply it's above sea level.

15.  Done What are Kaymaz rocks?

Just a redundancy of the locality in the paper, removed
no Disagree it's still in the table. I don't know what it should read.. maybe "Rocks at Kaymaz?" or just "Rocks"? I don't know. You see what I mean? Reader could ask the same question: "What are Kaymaz rocks?" Like it's a special kind of rock. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16.  Not possible Is information available about how it is pollinated? How long from bloom to fruit? How long does it take the fruit to get ripe? What do a seedling and young plant look like? How does it reproduce? Vegetatively? Sexually? Both? Discussion of the sexual organs with respect to how pollination occurs? Does it require cross-pollination?

Nothing out there on any of this; the only descriptions are of a fully mature plant. If you think it can't go without this info, I'll try to get some basics based off of information for sect. Adenosepalum
That's fine. Thanks for looking! Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17.  Partly done "habitat is usually in and among the crevices of limestone rocks and outcroppings." Describe that more. How much water does it need? Is this a dry environment? Desert-like? Windy? Hot? How cold does it get there in the winter? What kind of soil is it growing in? Does it like calcium soils? Nitrogen? Etc.?

Elaborated on the climate/how dry it is, but there really isn't any info on the soil or any specific requirements for sun or water, but I was able to infer from its morphology and region a bit, which is in the article.
Looks better. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18.  Done When was it recommended to the IUCN to be Critically Endangered? Have there been any results of that?

Date put in, nothing has come of its recommendation as of yet
I changed it to use the {{As of template. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19.  Done Had it been seen before 2006 but not realized as a "new" species? If so, when and how was it treated?

No publications had been made on it before the original species description

20.  Not done Any idea why it took 3 years to be described, and is that significant?

No clue, I don't think it's that uncommon for it to take a while to determine whether a new specimen is its own species, and I honestly doubt that this particular plant was all to high on the botanists' to-do list
Maybe just look at the wording. I think it says something that implies that it's a long time ("it wasn't described until"). Go more like "and was described in". Caveat, I may have already tweaked that earlier today. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21.  Done If any of the companion species have common names, use them in addition to the scientific names, and put the scientific names in parentheses with the Wikilinks.

22.  Not done What are the purposes of the glands on the petals (if that is known)?

Haven't found anything on this, I think it just may be a non-harmful chance mutation that isn't selected for or against, but that is just personal conjecture
 Possible See if the Hypericum article has anything on that as well. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23.  Done Is there any knowledge of how the plant is used? Or perhaps it isn't used at all since it is so remote. In that case, you can just leave it out.

The plant is so remote and there are so few that it is not used for anything

24.  Not done A danger is grazing. Is that because it is eaten or because it gets trampled? If it gets eaten, do the druse crystals in the stems not repel the herbivores?

Source does not specify, and it actually isn't known what druse crystals do at all, it's just kind of a guess that maybe herbivores don't like them
Okay Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

25.  Not done Do they know when it goes dormant and when it begins to sprout in the spring?

Okay Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

———Eewilson (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:, some great questions! I myself was wondering about a lot of these, and I've been searching for answers! Sadly, there is simply very little material out there on this species, which was actually one of the reasons I chose to tackle this article; I figured if I can accurately and comprehensively put every iota of information out there into one article, then it must pass GA criteria. I'll read through the papers I have found (all of which are cited already by the way) to see if there is anything I have missed, but I'll also do some other digging! I just emailed both taxon authors, and will probably reach out to some more authors who may be able to point me in the direction of more information. In the meantime, I will likely give Mr. Robson's recent works another combing to see if any information can be extrapolated from them about the recent treatment of H. sechmenii. This will probably be a bit of a scavenger hunt to find all, or any, of this info, so forgive me if I take a little while; I'd like to do this right. If you happen to have any place I can dig around for some answers or any ideas in general, please let me know! Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just as a quick tack-on question, if there isn't some of this information for specifically H. sechmenii, could it be an OK idea to put in characteristics that are present in all of say, sect. Adenosepalum, which would also apply to this species? Or would that just be redundant and better left out? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Regarding missing species info that you can glean from the section, genus, family, etc., if they apply, I think that would be good. I did that in the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Reproduction part under Ecology, intermixing things from the species with info about the genus and even a little that is in common with all species in the family Asteraceae. I think it made for a good write-up (my bias), although caveat is that it hasn't been picked up for GA review yet. Not sure anyone wants to pick it up! :) You may want to look at some of the GA species articles (Banksia genus has a few I think). Don't worry about timeframe. If we have to put this "on hold" while you are looking and writing (if it goes past this week), then we will. I see no need at this time for there to be another GA nomination with it, just keep working with this one. It's getting there. —Eewilson (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from MeegsC: You don't ever mention the color of the flowers in the Description section! Yes, there's a picture, but it should still be included in the text—particularly for the benefit of our unsighted readers. MeegsC (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Thanks for that reminder! @Fritzmann2002: and I had discussed colors and other things related to describing it. —Eewilson (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I just want to make sure of this, but it is OK to put in info from pictures that isn't explicitly stated in the sources, right? None of the sources for the description actually say what the color of the petals are (even though it's obvious from the picture). If so, I'm sure there is other description information I could glean from the pictures of the species to put in the article. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be using the source that has the color photo(s), so you will cite that as your source and the page on which the image is. I may have forgotten to answer that question before? —Eewilson (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hey, that's fantastic, I did not know that. I should be able to fill out the description section a bit more now, thanks! Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know what would be really cool? If author Okan Sezer, who uploaded it to ResearchGate, has released or would release these images with a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license. You haven't happened to contact him for any reason have you? —Eewilson (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find an email for Prof. Sezer, but I did get in touch with the taxon authors Ocak and Koyuncu, the latter of whom just emailed me back today. I'm going to see if they published any papers that aren't out on the internet, and ask them about releasing the images under a free license, since the actual specimens are housed at their university's herbarium. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson:, I've answered all the questions I think I will be able to unless something changes. A lot of the information on pollination, what the glands do, ecology, etc. just doesn't exist, and trust me, I looked. I've added all of the extra tidbits of information I think are relevant to the article, and would appreciate another lookover. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Great! Would you mind going through this latest list and putting the applicable Template:Done#Inline icon templates by shape and color with explanations, if needed? It will help me as I look at this. —Eewilson (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Thanks for that! I made a few minor reviewer-allowed tweaks to the article while I was waiting, only bumping into you once, which I was able to work around. Now I'll compare this list to the article and give the article another good study. Don't be surprised if I come up with more, but I really think we are getting there. You are a joy to work with! Easy-going, agreeable, thorough, and I hope I'm the same. We should have a review the review session after it's all over. :) Will get back with you soon. —Eewilson (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY, see my comments above. Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I have to apologize! I think one of my edits got eaten or I just forgot to hit submit! I said I'd made changes (esp. for the smaller stuff in the content), but I guess I didn't! I think those are fixed now, the only thing left for me to do is the additional information on glands, etc., from the Hypericum article, which I'll get to at some point today. I'll ping you again once I think everything has been taken care of, it's so exciting to be this close to the finish line! Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 15:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Hi! No problem. I do have a few more things... I'll add them in a bit. —Eewilson (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content 2 and references

[edit]

@Fritzmann2002:

  • From MOS:LINKING: Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.
    • In light of this, fix these:
      • Stems:  DoneBeneath the periderm is the main growth tissue called vascular cambium which produces phloem and xylem in outward and inward directions respectively. — short description of phloem and xylem before you use the words. Was xylem already wikilinked in Roots? May be able to put the short description of it there (if it isn't already) and may not need that here, just phloem.
Xylem described earlier, phloem described there
      • Leaves:
        •  DoneOn both sides of the leaves there are stomata pores, and there is tightly packed palisade tissue which consists of leaf cells just below the epidermis.
        •  DoneThe hypodermal cells directly beneath the epidermis... — needs something explaining hypodermal or does "directly beneath the epidermis" do that? Is that what "hypodermal" means? Clarify in the text, maybe by just rearranging it if that's the case.
Info able to be said in many fewer words with some rearranging
        •  Done...and they densely overlap each other (called aestivation). Is that what aestivation is? Densely overlapping? I had slightly changed the wording but when I go to the hyperlink for aestivation, I still am not getting it.
Removed, I don't actually remember when that was wikilinked, it could have just been a complete error which is what I'm thinking now b/c it isn't in any of the sources
      • Inflorescence: You want your explanation first, like with corymbs - you come upon the word and then it's explained in the next sentence.
        •  Donecorymbs
        •  Donepedicels
        •  Not donebract
Bracts are just specialized leaves around the flowers, I think just saying "..specialized bract leaves" would be sufficient, unless you disagree of course
        •  Doneprobably don't need to link to small hairs unless you put cilia in parentheses and link it
        •  Donesepals
        •  DonePollen paragraph has good information, but the technical terms need to be described without jargon. Also, "surprise links" need to be un-surprising (Wikilink should tell me, for the most part, where I'm going - Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Principle of least astonishment).
      •  DoneSimilar species: last sentence, explain "pith cells."
  • Taxonomy:
    •  DoneMaybe slight rearrangement of text - I think 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph might be better switched. See what you think.
Combined paragraph 1 and 3 since it sounds like they flow a bit better
    •  Done Remove Infrequently, the species is incorrectly referred to as Hypericum secmenii in some works. It looks like it's just a typo in this one work on this page, right? Plus, the source is not telling you that it's spelled incorrectly in some works, but you are citing the misspelling, so just remove the sentence unless you have seen someone say it's misspelled or you've seen it given as a synonym as a misspelling.
    •  DoneRobson placed the species in a clade called the Huber-morathii Group which comprises five Turkish species of Hypericum and lies within the large section Adenosepalum. Robson 1996 source also needs a page number here.
Referenced MySpecies instead, I feel like the information is much more accessible and easy to read there and isn't really any different
  • Distribution and habitat:
    •  DoneNeed a sentence that leads in to the existence of the table (but you can't say "the following table" or "below" or "to the right" etc.).
Did my best, still a tad clunky, feel free to tweak
  • Ecology:
    •  Not done Needs work. I am learning that this is perhaps the most difficult part of a plant article. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Ecology. See what you can glean from your sources to hit on any of the bullet-points in this part of the Taxon template.
I agree that this is really a pain, there just really isn't anything else out there on this. All the information is when it fruits and flowers and a few species that have been observed close to it; none of the other articles even mention ecology. I'm not quite sure how to incorporate stuff from Hypericum in general either, as the genus's species are found in a very wide range of habitats and ecosystems, but I will certainly look into it.
  • Conservation:
    •  DoneI think there's a comma missing in here somewhere: The species is under threat from both abiotic factors, especially climate change and human impact from agriculture and grazing.
    •  DoneNext sentence, change one of the species to either a pronoun or the species name.
  • References: I checked all statements against sources and found four problems.
    •  DoneDescription short lead-in: ...sometimes to 8 cm (3.1 in). Source for "Robson 1996" needs a page number here.
    •  DoneRoots source should be pp. 7–8, not just 8.
    •  DoneStems: Some cells in the periderm of the stems also contain inorganic minerals known as druse crystals which are thought to deter herbivory because of their toxicity. I could not find the bold part in the source.
Added independent source
    •  DoneLeaves: Need page number for the part about naphthodianthrones and insects (hint, see page 5 in source).

—Eewilson (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Almost everything done, just the bract description and ecology section that I'd appreciate you taking a second look at if you don't mind. Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 19:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearing home plate

[edit]

@Fritzmann2002:

  • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) Getting there! So there's this image of the pollen grains but no description of how the pollen grains are important in differentiating between these 3 similar species. That can go in similar species, and the pollen image should go down there after you talk about it. I like having the image available when the pollen is described, so I don't want to remove it from the article, but it needs to be in context. That way, it will serve both purposes — viewing the H. sechmenii grain example and seeing the differences among the three. —Eewilson (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This link will show you minor changes I've made today; just take a glance at those: [1]
  • I archived a couple of the reference URLs and added those archive links to the refs. For some reason, I just enjoy doing that. :)
  • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) Make sure for all ranges (numbers, dates, measurements), you use the ndash instead of hyphen. It's in the editor footer next to the Insert pop-up. I've been fixing them along the way and keep forgetting to tell you. Took me awhile to get used to and was easier once I noticed it was in the editor tools at the bottom.[reply]
  • Bract is fine.
  • Taxonomy
    • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) When you discuss the holotype and when it was discovered, you use myspecies as the ref, but I think that particular fact should link to the actual holotype page on my species which is below with the archived information following (I archived it, too :) ). There are actually 2 holotype records on myspecies. Maybe one is labeled wrong or maybe it's a dup. You only really need to use one, and this is the one with the lower "node" number.[reply]
url = http://hypericum.myspecies.info/node/28520
archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210213223510/http://hypericum.myspecies.info/node/28520
archive-date = 13 February 2021
url-status = live
access-date = 13 February 2021

The placement of ''H. sechmenii'' can be summarized as follows:{{r|MySpecies}}
:'''''[[Hypericum]]'''''
::'''[[Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum|''Hypericum'' sect. ''Adenosepalum'']]'''
:::[[Hypericum subsect. Adenosepalum|subsect. ''Adenosepalum'']]
:::[[Hypericum subsect. Aethiopica|subsect. ''Aethiopica'']]
:::[[Hypericum subsect. Caprifolia|subsect. ''Caprifolia'']]
:::'''[[Hypericum huber-morathii group|''Huber-Morathii'' group]]'''
::::''[[Hypericum decaisneanum|H. decaisneanum]]''
::::''[[Hypericum formosissimum|H. formosissimum]]''
::::''[[Hypericum huber-morathii|H. huber-morathii]]''
::::''[[Hypericum minutum|H. minutum]]''
::::'''''H. sechmenii'''''

The placement of H. sechmenii can be summarized as follows:[1]

Hypericum
Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum
subsect. Adenosepalum
subsect. Aethiopica
subsect. Caprifolia
Huber-Morathii group
H. decaisneanum
H. formosissimum
H. huber-morathii
H. minutum
H. sechmenii
  • Ecology
    • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) You can start with "Little has been published on the ecology of Hypericum sechmenii."[reply]
    • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) Work blooming and fruiting time into a paragraph when you get more in here instead of just one lone sentence. Maybe just as the second sentence in the first paragraph following the "Little has been..."[reply]
    • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) Part of this sentence from Distribution and habitat can actually go in Ecology: "The leaves of Hypericum sechmenii contain xeromorphic stomata, which are stomata that have developed adaptations to allow the plant to better survive in its arid, steppe habitat of Central Anatolia,[1]:5[12] defined as the Irano-Turanian floristic region.[13]:66" You can actually describe a bit about the region here.[reply]
    • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) You can also repeat information about how its adaptations with the druse crystals likely deter herbivores, and it seems like there was another thing that did that... the black glands maybe?[reply]
  • (checkY Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)) Toxicity[reply]

It's amazing how much more information the article has in it than when you first submitted it! See

—Eewilson (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: I think it's all taken care of now, I hope I correctly resolved the bit of an edit conflict, apologies if I didn't. Anything else you've got for me? Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 01:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: It's I who has been bumping into you! I'm sorry about that. I'll take another look and get back with you! —Eewilson (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: OKAY. Look over what I've written above. Checked things off but marked one thing In Progress. Take a look at it. I wasn't clear before about what I meant. —Eewilson (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: Oops! Yeah I wasn't sure what you meant so thank you for spelling that out for me, this is certainly a very educational experience for me. Went ahead and just copy pasted that right in, thanks! Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 03:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: Great, and me, too! Okay, so now I'm ready to.... ask for a second opinion. :) Since this is my first GA review. So I would pass it otherwise, but I really want someone else to look at it just to make sure I'm on the right track and haven't missed anything or led us astray. I'll be changing the status in a minute for that. —Eewilson (talk) 03:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

[edit]

A very thorough review; a couple of issues solved that go beyond the GA criteria (like dashes). I believe the article is ready for promotion. I've changed one 'as of' cited to a 2013 source, but stating 'as of february 2021'. If you have a more recent source, that can be changed back. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene: Thank you very much! —Eewilson (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA pass!

[edit]

GA passed. :) --Eewilson (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference MySpecies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).