Talk:Hypericum

Reference Query

That line about AIDS and hypericum usage appears uncitated: I checked the only source the wiki page has and it makes no reference to any deaths caused by taking St. John's Wort. Can someone find a source for this? 24.69.177.42 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I also query lack of citation regarding the line about HIV/AIDS and hypericum use. I cannot find any sources that confirm a link between deaths caused by taking St. John's Wort with HIV infection. St. John's Wort can however interact with certain drugs such as contraceptive pill, immune suppressant drugs used to prevent organ rejection in transplantation and antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV and concurrent use is therefore contraindicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.114.43 (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Layout suggestion

"As these secondary compounds appear to be related to deterring herbivores, they are present in varying and unpredictable quantities" This doesn't make sense - related to herbivores? Is this supposed to say "appear to have evolved as a herbivore deterrant" or something to that effect? Silasmellor (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Scope

A good article should cover the subject reasonably well. This article does not. Apart from the intro, there is not a description of the plants themselves, no description of their ecology (or there is, but it is extremely narrow), no description of the distribution range, no description of relatedness to other genuses or groupings among the 500 species. --Ettrig (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Burklemore1 (talk · contribs) 13:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• I immediately noticed that there is a citation needed tag. This should be addressed immediately unless this was a mistake.

Contacted uploader of the image and asked to get in contact with him so that I can ask about the issues regarding its identification. Fritzmann2002 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Genus name needs to be italicized in the second sentence of the lead.

Done Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Hypericum is unusual for a genus of its size because a worldwide taxonomic monograph[2] was produced for it by N.Robson (working at the Natural History Museum, London, UK, between 1977 and 2012)." So why is there no taxonomy and evolution section? This needs further explaining with a detailed paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to say how long he was working at the Natural Museum either.

Removed unnecessary date. Researching its taxonomy and evolution for paragraph. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Robson recognizes 36 sections within Hypericum." This needs clarification. It should be clear as to what these 36 sections are. Species groups perhaps? The genus name also needs italicizing.
• The lead discusses its distribution, but there is no distribution and habitat section. Expand.
• "...."though they are also commonly just called hypericum". That's their genus name anyway so how is this relevant?

Removed this. Also researching the origin of the nickname for a sentence after that. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• "The marsh St. John's-worts are nowadays separated into the genus Triadenum". This can be better explained in the taxonomy section if you make one.
• The third paragraph discusses the description of these plants, yet there is no description. As of now, this article is far from being comprehensive and this must be addressed. I'll give you some time since it may take long, but I believe the editor should have taken more time to work on this.

Moving description into its own section. Working to find better and easier to read information for said section. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Overall, there should not be any citations in the lead.

Would you say that the lead includes the second paragraph? Either way, I will be moving the N. Robson bit in with a taxonomy and evolution section. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes and that sounds fine.

• No information in regards to its relationships with other plant genera either?
• There is hardly any information about its ecology. There is some, but it's brief and as usual, needs expansion.
• The lead itself should have some expansion. I recommend addressing this once you have dealt with all the issues above and give it a rewrite. Condense the taxonomy and give a briefing over the other topics (and please mention its role in medicine).
• "Numerous hybrids and cultivars have been developed for use in horticulture, such as H. × moserianum[5] (H. calycinum × H. patulum), H. 'Hidcote'[6] and H. 'Rowallane'.[7]" This should be further explained.
• "The beetles Chrysolina quadrigemina, Chrysolina hyperici and the St. John's-wort Root Borer (Agrilus hyperici) like to feed" A bit too wordy (the text in bold), so you should condense it down to just "feed".
• "Common St. John's-wort (H. perforatum) has long been used in herbalism." Nothing wrong with this particular sentence, but the plants name has already been wiki-linked and I don't think it's necessary to include its scientific name in parenthesis when you already have.

Done and done Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• More to come. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• The second and third paragraph of "uses of Hypercium" is entirely unreferenced.
• ....only known food plants of the caterpillar of the Treble-bar" Poorly written.
• "Justifying this view with the then-current doctrine of signatures, herbalist William Coles (1626–1662)[14] wrote in the 17th century that" It's quite awkward how there is no full stop or anything at the end of this sentence. Perhaps this little friend could be appropriate... ":"
• The plant health problems section needs expansion or merged into a section.
• Taxonomy and cultivars are both unreferenced and both need expansion.
• Ref no. 1 is incomplete.

Replaced reference Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ref no. 2 is prone to link rot. Also incomplete and poorly reformatted.
• Ref no. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are incorrectly titled, incomplete and poorly reformatted.
• Ref no. 14 needs a page number. Also incomplete.
• Ref no. 17 and 18 are incorrectly cited and formatted.

At this point, this article is far from meeting the GA criteria and needs to undergo a major revamp. I have multiple options:

• You perform a magical wonder and solve all these issues.
• You ask to withdraw this article so you can work on it before nominating it again.
• You choose to never respond to this review and I close it.
• If you do not respond, I am giving seven days (excluding weekends as you have left a notice in regards) for you to reply, otherwise I'm failing it. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Many apologies. Life happened. I see all of the things that can be fixed before someone (or myself) re-nominate the article. I apologize for using your time on a nomination that, now that I look back on it, should not have been made. I will work to fix these problems and request that the article be withdrawn. Fritzmann2002 18:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am working on solving these problems within the article, and would ask that you bear with my questions on a few of them, as I will be responding on this page. Fritzmann2002 18:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. You don't have to apologise, all of us will do it at one point. I'll have to "fail it" to conclude the review, but I'll still view it as a withdraw. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, NCBI has over 2,400 journals to go over so it can provide plenty of information you need. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that the medical properties is pretty comprehensive and detailed, so you probably don't have to add anymore information unless you find more. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Failing it is OK with me. If I re-nominate it, would you like me to contact you or would you be alright with someone else reviewing it? Up to you. Fritzmann2002 13:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You can contact me if you would like. As for someone else reviewing it, it's good for an extra pair of eyes so that's all fine. If you want I can give any additional comments while someone else is reviewing it (just in case they miss anything). Depending on the reviewer, the article could either be FA ready or not if you intend on taking it that far. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Layout suggestion

This is a layout that I suggest. It's basic, but it is some sort of template

• Etymology
• Taxonomy and evolution (or separate the two into their own section, I wonder if it has a fossil record and estimation of when the first Hypercium plants emerged)
• Description
• Distribution and diversity
• Ecology*
  • ...insert other sections
• Relationship with humans
  • As pests
  • In medicine
  • Cultivation

I'm sure there would be many more sections, but this is what I'd go with as a start off. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic Coordination For Hypericum

Hello! I am Fritzmann2002. I have spent a lot of time working on creating articles for the many species of Hypericum. This process is very time consuming, and I am not very good at creating large articles with many different features, etcetera. To try to better the coverage of this interesting genus, I wanted to call together some editors to collaborate and learn with me and to accomplish these goals:

• Bring the main Hypericum article to Good Article status
• Have a Start Class article for every species in the genus, or at least those in the selected species list
• Have an image of said species of every article
• Create the necessary non-article material, e.g. redirects, categories, stub templates, and the like

If you would like to assist me in this, please add your name below and say what you would like to help with:

Fritzmann2002 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

marsh St. John's wort

The European marsh St. John's wort (Hypericum elodes) seems to be still in Hypericum, so it seems that the statement about Triadenum needs to be made more precise. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, User:Lavateraguy! In the future, be sure to sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~). In response to your statement, I have found some statements online (USDA site) that say H. elodes is definitely now in Triadenum, but none have very complete information on the genus. However, I couldn't find any that explicitly say that the species is still in Hypericum. I will place a tag next to the statement and you may feel free to find sources that prove your point; if you find notable ones , feel free to change the statement. Fritzmann2002 13:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where the USDA site places the European Hypericum elodes in Triadenum. Nor does a Google search find any references to Triadenum elodes or Triadenum palustris.

Separating Triadenum might have been a new change that hadn't propagated into Europe, but on investigated I find that there's a 2011 dissertation that suggests that sections Elodes and Adenotrias should be excluded from Hypericum (but not placed in Triadenum) - presumably resurrecting genus Elodes (but excluding Triadenum). Lavateraguy (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and don't object to your changes. The USDA site places marsh St. John's wort in Triadenum, but you are correct that it does not place Hypericum elodes (European marsh St. John's wort) in Triadenum. Your statement that you added is well written and I agree with what it says. Thanks for that change, Fritzmann2002 18:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why merge? Why?

@Ethanlu121: Why in the world do you want to merge the articles? There is absolutely no reason for it! They are about two different topics. There is already a List of Hypericum species article. The section articles add on to this, but should not be merged into Hypericum or the list of species. Fritzmann2002 17:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I think the basic problem here is that you're creating too many sublists. Section is not a recognized entry in a taxonomic breakdown. The List of Hypericum species already contains an exhaustive list; the breakdown of the list into sections is not founded on reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I stand corrected. And yet, my assertion doesn't change much. The single list of all species could easily be organized by section, without requiring a separate list for each section. I would recommend you take that up at Talk:List of Hypericum species. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I do see where you are coming from. I feel that there should be some way to have some redirect for the sections of Hypericum, however. Perhaps what could be done is, like you said, break the species list up by section and redirect the sections to their respective, ah, section. I have some other Wiki-work I'd like to do today, but I will get to working on that. Fritzmann2002 13:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: I agree with that plan, but you should mention it at Talk:List of Hypericum species just to make sure there's no objection. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)