Talk:Hypericum sect. Androsaemum/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 17:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Single-item list

I am concerned about the single-item list in the "See also" section. Maybe it should be OK to add at least one more item, or remove the bullet and leave a sentence? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maxim Masiutin: I added Psorospermum androsaemifolium to the list, I hope that is all set now. Can I anticipate a full review from you by any chance? It would be much appreciated! Fritzmann (message me) 20:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for this separate observation, I'm now reviewing the article and will come up with the full review tomorrow. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I studied the article. Spelling and grammar are correct, if not to say more than perfect. The article's prose is clear and concise, but I have concerns about whether it is understandable to an appropriately broad audience, at least in the lead section. The article complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation, but I have concerns about whether it complies with the Manual of Style in the lead section.

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article so that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The lead section should explain why the article is notable or should list the most notable or interesting topics about the article; in other words, the reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be specified or at least introduced. The lead section should give a summary of the most important contents of the article. The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long, and the lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article and may be the only portion of the article that they read. For this reason, the lead section should be easy to understand and enjoyable to read—it should not be overly technical, and it should not be uninteresting for a general reader. The lead section's language should be chosen so that the lead section should be accessible to as broad an audience as possible. Where possible, difficult-to-understand terminology should be avoided. Where possible, such terminology should be replaced with synonyms that are easier to understand but not to the point of oversimplification. Hard-to-understand or complex or specific terms should be explained immediately in the sentence where such terms are used, and the wikilinks should be used on such terms. Wikipedia Manual of Style on lead section gives the following explanation (quote): "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked, and briefly defined." However, there is a wide margin of appreciation for what is considered "uncommon terms"; we don't have lists of common and uncommon terms to use, and we don't have a poll of a wide general audience to spot such words. Anyway, we are writing an encyclopedia for a general audience. When we write Wikipedia, we do not write a scientific journal or a scientific directory for scientists.

In my opinion, the following terms used in the lead are uncommon to a bigger or lesser extent: "genus", "taxa", "stamen", "monoterpene", "sesquiterpene", "deciduous", escape from cultivation, invasive species, "dark glands." Some of these terms are not even wikilinked. Does "noxious weed" mean the same as "invasive species" related to these species? Although it is explained that monoterpene and sesquiterpene are hydrocarbons, the term itself ("hydrocarbons") is somewhat uncommon. There is a sentence (quote), "Extracts taken from the species have diverse profiles of essential oils, usually dominated by monoterpene or sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, but sometimes containing high concentrations of more unique substances", but a general audience may have a question on whether "more unique substances" is a specific term, and what does "more unique substances" mean? Is it an opposing term for less unique substances such as monoterpene and sesquiterpene? Why are those more unique substances not specified? Shouldn't this information about chemical substances be removed from the lead and moved to a separate section in the body, such as a "Phytochemistry" section? Isn't it worth mentioning something interesting from the Etymology section somewhere in one of the first few sentences of a lead to make the lead more vivid? Isn't it worth mentioning in more detail in a "Cultivation history" section, where it can also be described on how it escaped from cultivation and became an invasive species? What does it invade? Is damage ever calculated in monetary terms?

Apart from the lead section, the article is verifiable with no original research, contains no copyright violations, is broad in its coverage, stable, neutral, and properly illustrated.

If I had no concerns about the lead section, I would have already finished the review with the "pass" results. I have reviewed the whole article, and I have no more objections (apart from those I already gave for the lead section).

Can you give details on species from Hypericum sect. Androsaemum: cultivation history? Is there information on when it escaped from cultivation and became an invasive species? If you don't have such information, this is fine, as it doesn't prevent the article from passing the review on this part—the article is already complete enough. However, I don't think that the lead section is easily enough understandable for the general audience. Can you please improve the lead section? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Review corrections

For clarity, I'm going to break out your suggestions into bullet points and include my response to them. If I miss anything or mischaracterize please feel free to change! This is just to help me keep track

• Lead needs to fully summarize the contents of the article

• Which parts of the article are not summarized by the lede? I have included etymology, taxonomy, description, chemistry, and ecology. Is there a particular section you think should have more?

• Lead needs to be "enjoyable to read"

• I have endeavored make it so; suggestions on this are always welcome!

• Lead needs to not have uncommon terms ("genus", "taxa", "stamen", "monoterpene", "sesquiterpene", "invasive species", "deciduous", escape from cultivation, invasive species, "dark glands")

• Removed: stamen, monoterpene, sesquiterpene, cultivation
• Linked: dark glands
• Explained: invasive species (said they are in non-native area)
• Kept: genus and taxa are unavoidable in biology articles. I try to write at a high school level and I definitely recall learning these terms in Bio 101. Deciduous is similar, there just isn't a way to rewrite that which isn't clunky.

• Is damage calculated in monetary terms?

• No, damage is notoriously difficult to calculate

• Does "noxious weed" means the same as "invasive species" related to these species?

• Noxious weed is used to describe some St John's wort, but not in this context. It usually refers to something that is harmful (noxious) to livestock or people.

• Hydrocarbons is too technical

• Removed from the lede

• What does "more unique substances" mean?

• Rewritten, that was bad phrasing on my part

• Can chemistry be moved to the body?

• There is a section on chemistry in the body that goes into detail. It's better summarized now in the lede

• Can part of etymology section be moved to the lead?

• I've moved a piece of it there

• More details on invasiveness perhaps

• Details on invasiveness are dealt with at the species article; this just gives a broad overview

Please let me know if there are any other comments! Fritzmann (message me) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 OK, thank you for breaking that. I intentionally didn't break them because you may want to give more emphasis on some information and less on other, therefore, you may wish to do other emphasis than I would have done. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, glad I didn't step on any toes there. Were there any other comments for the lead or the body of the article? Fritzmann (message me) 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your exceptionally fast reply. I thought that the parts of the article about the Greek or French origins were not summarized by the lede, but now it is OK, you already improved the lead sufficiently. It was not interesting to enough to read ("enjoyable to read") because it had lots of technical terms—an issue you already resolved. Thank you for your explanation on chemistry-related question. I just thought you might have wanted expand the Chemistry section slightly. The contents of the "Chemistry" section looks small (like a stub), maybe it should have been written more, but anyway it does not trigger violation of the MOS:OVERSECTION because this rule mostly apply when there are multiple small section, not just one small and other are large. Maybe you will add more information about this section in the future. Maybe it is also worth mentioning somewhere (probably not in the lead, but you decide, maybe in the "See also") that the family Hypericaceae is commonly known as the St. John's wort family, however, as this family contains many section, this particular section (Androsaemum), doesnțt include St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) which is a part of sect. Hypericum. Thank you also for the explanation about the "invasive" term, althought the "Ecology" section covers the invasiveness, maybe you will find reliable sources to claim that the species of this sect. are not noxious weeds, i.e. they only fill open spaces and displace native plants for these area, but are not harming plants that are cultivated e.g. by the farmers. However, those things about expanding the Chemistry section and about mentioning the St. John's wort and about weeds are just suggestions for probable future improvement of the article. Now, after your changes, the article satisfies the GA criteria. Thank you for writing the good article and thank you for the especially fast reply where you resolved all my concerns. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.