Talk:Hypericum decaisneanum

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

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzmann2002! Let's get started.

• Y Use a secondary source for the synonym in the Speciesbox (eg, POWO) and modify the author citation accordingly. Set synonym references to the POWO page for the species.
• Y POWO citation at end of Authority parameter in Speciesbox.
• Y Wikilink the four author abbreviations in the Speciesbox.

More coming. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, also carried over some of the changes from H. formosissimum in preparation. Fritzmann (message me) 00:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thinking! Here's a bit more for now.

• Y in speciesbox, your ref for the synonym points to the powo page for Hypericum taubertii. While it's true that page tells us it is a synonym of Hypericum decaisneanum, it does not guarantee that it is the only synonym. So you should cite the powo page for Hypericum decaisneanum here.
• Y The authority for Hypericum taubertii needs to have the "ex Coss." attached.
• Each of the footnotes needs a citation because they stand alone. I think I forgot that in the previous GA!

It's looking good. Do those things, and then I'll compare article to sources, as well as think about anything else that you might need to include.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson, getting an error when trying to include references in the footnotes. If it's any help, all of the citations are directly after the notes. Fritzmann (message me) 17:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've vaguely remember that happening to me when I first tried it. I will get back with you on how this works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try something like this?

{{Efn|group=n|Outside range {{Nowrap|10 to 38}}{{Sfnp|Brouillet|Semple|Allen|Chambers|2006}}}}

This works well. I have separate Notes section and Citations section.

==Notes==
{{Notelist |group=n}}

==Citations==
{{Reflist|20em}}

and because my preference is shortened footnotes, I keep a separate References section as well.

==References==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
{{Refend}}

There might be a problem with embedding a list defined reference within a footnote. If that's not working, try a shortened footnote like I have shown here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson, I've used your code but it is still presenting an error message. If you'd like to try to tweak it I'd be very appreciative, but if it doesn't work then I'm just going to revert to not having references in the footnotes. Fritzmann (message me) 23:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fritzmann2002! Continuing...

• I don't understand what you mean (last part of final sentence of lead). Can you make this clearer?

... conflicting relationships have meant it has been treated more recently as a member of section Adenosepalum.

Simplified the clause

• Can you Wikilink "apiculus" to a glossary term or Wiktionary, please, and perhaps add a short explanation in the sentence?

Done

• ... scattered pale and black leaves may be present on the petals. Make this make sense, please.

Done

• ... and have a black anther gland. Do you mean a black gland on each anther?

Yes, referred to as an anther gland

• ... it is enclosed when it is growing by the petals twisting together. Please make this better.

Done

• Regarding the problem you were having with citations within the notes, you do have to do it the way I described (using {{Efn}}) or use {{Refn}}. See the second paragraph of WP:EXPLNOTESECT (aka, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Separating citations from explanatory footnotes).
• There are some standard practices for citing sources; see WP:CITEVAR subsection Generally considered helpful (aka, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Generally considered helpful) for a list of these.
  • Specifically here, the bullet point that reads "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles (e.g., some of the citations in footnotes and others as parenthetical references): an improvement because it makes the citations easier to understand and edit". Within an article, consistently using a citation style should be done – citation styles shouldn't be mixed. So either use list-defined or shortened footnotes (the latter preferred in this case because of the multiple uses of the same sources). I believe this is in the MOS or somewhere else in a guideline, too, but as usual, I can't find it.
  • Another standard citation practice, a few bullet points down on that same page, reads "replacing opaque named-reference names with conventional ones, such as 'Einstein-1905' instead of ':27'". So fix this as well, please.

This is not a part of the GAN criteria, but you're welcome to make the changes

Ha ha. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The file Jabal_al_Akhdar_in_Libya.svg in the Distribution and habitat section should be moved to the Speciesbox.

Done

• No way to expand the D&h section? Nothing else on habitat in other sources?

Nope, the north-facing escarpments bit was the only additional info I could glean beyond basic D&H

• There are associated species (possibly in the body or in footnotes) that should be verified in POWO. Some may be synonyms now.

The way I have handled this is by using the currently accepted name in the body (See Symphyotrichum novae-angliae #Pollinators and food-seekers section: "Some bees will collect pollen in addition to nectar, such as the broad-handed leafcutter bee (Megachile latimanus) and Drury's long-horned bee (Melissodes druriellus).[32][d]" The source uses a name for the latter species that is not valid because of the rules of Latin, so footnote "d" in the article reads "As Melissodes druriella in Wilhelm & Rericha[32]". Citation 32 goes to Wilhelm & Rericha (which is the source, a book published in 2017). Since the source uses a name that is not current, I think it is important to have that information in the article as well as the current name. And I just realize that I should have cited where I got the valid name... S. novae-angliae is a GA.

An article I am working on in my user space (see User:Eewilson/Spilosum, which is an expansion-in-progress of Symphyotrichum pilosum) has several instances in which plant species used in the same book are now synonymized in POWO. In the draft expansion, subsection #Flowering plants, the footnote for the taxon "Solidago nemoralis subsp. decemflora (gray goldenrod)" reads "Wilhelm & Rericha (2017) list the taxon as Solidago decemflora[7] which POWO synonymizes to Solidago nemoralis subsp. decemflora.[77]" Others in the draft are similar.

I don't believe this is a GAN criteria either; if and when the articles are created then redirects for their synonyms should as well, which does not impact navigation. Substituting species names also verges on WP:OR; the sources state that those species I listed are the ones H. decaisneanum is found alongside

It's not going to be specifically listed as a GA criteria. I don't think it would be OR, either. But we can let it go. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What does the parameter |responsive= in <references></references> do? I don't remember seeing it before, and I can't find it in any documentation. I've also never used <references></references> (to my recollection) but instead use the template {{Reflist}}. (This has little to do with the GA review other than I am looking at the Wikitext in the source.)

It ended up getting replaced anyways, but I'm not sure why that was there since I also usually use reflist

Weird. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing information in the article to the sources will be next. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back again, Fritzmann2002! Text-source comparison:

• In Etymology: The specific epithet decaisneanum is in honor of French botanist Joseph Decaisne, who had recently died when the first collections of the species were made.[5] Citation 5 is for Cosson & Daveau 1899, p. 405. I cannot find this information on this page (and I think even though it is in French, I would be able to.) Is that the correct page number?

I think this was a case of machine translation failing me, I've amended the text. Here's what I'm pulling from: "Speciem hane eximian defleto professori Decaisne itineris Cyrenaici anno 1875 incepti fautori benignissimo grato lubentissimoque animo"

• In Distribution and habitat (and in the lead although no citation needed, and in the map caption which does need a citation): Hypericum decaisneanum is endemic to the Jebel al Akhdar province of Libya.[1] Citation 1 is for POWO. The POWO page for this species does not say that it is endemic, it says "native". You need a different source or change the wording to native.

Changed

• In Ecology and propagation:
  • Is Rock Garden Plants considered a reliable source?

Yes, there's a more thorough discussion and explanation at the FAC for Hypericum sechmenii

Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Cuttings are typically taken in the late summer.[3] Source does not say "typically".

Done

• • I don't see where this same source says Like other species in the Huber-morathii group....

It's located in the other pages for the taxa, I've included another reference.

That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In Taxonomy:
  • While most species of the genus Hypericum were included in a monographic study by Norman Robson in the 20th century... – I think here it would be better just to say "1993" (year of publication) instead of "the 20th century".

The monograph was many installments, over a period of several decades

Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • The subgenus Hypericum subg. Hypericum is in the hierarchy, but oddly, the subgenera are left out of the hierarchy in the source Hypericum decaisneanum at Hypericum online.

Good catch, it is odd that isn't in the online monograph

Please address the open issues. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson, should all be addressed now, the only outstanding thing is the note citations that I can't get to work. Fritzmann (message me) 00:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann2002 Oops. You must've had it open when I had fixed the errors with the footnotes because they have been undone. So I'll just go in and make them again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann2002, I redid the change. The errors were because my example used sfnp, and the article uses sfn, and it didn't like that the reference with the same name was being defined two different ways. Just changing the sfnp to sfn fixed them – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, that looks much better. Anything else I can take care of? Fritzmann (message me) 01:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have every intention of finishing this tonight without staying up late! Let me give it one more read. Any minor changes needed, I'll make myself. Anything big (doubt it!), and I'll defer to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritzmann2002, Go back up to this note I made. I think you have the wrong page number, don't you? You used 405. Should it be 104 or 105? Could you double-check? Then after that, I think we're done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yes it should be 105, the typeface threw me for a loop there. Thanks for the catch. Fritzmann (message me) 02:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: