Talk:Hypericum sechmenii/GA1

GA Review

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

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

First round

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)

@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)

@Fritzmann2002: Absolutely and you're welcome. Don't be discouraged. It's a good start. :) –Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

@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)