Talk:Hypericum minutum/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

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article and, on a cursory glance, it looks as it is is close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Simon, as a note I will be travelling this weekend but should have plenty of time to respond to any fixes on Monday at the latest. Fritzmann (message me) 14:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Fritzmann. I hope you have safe travels. I will start with some general comments.

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of short, but adequate length, with 956 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 120 words.
• Authorship is 98,2% from the nominator.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • Suggest some of the terms are quite advanced and may not be understandable to a general reader. For example, "specific epithet" could be replaced by "name of the species" and maybe explain what vittae are in the first instance.

     Changed

   • The phrase "The leaf is a wide oval shape to almost circular" could be reworded to become more clear. How about "The leaf is a wide oval that is nearly a circle".

     Changed to "...ranges in shape from a wide oval to almost circular..."

   • Should there be a comma before the "and" in "It is entirely hairless and it grows in tufts of stems that ascend from a central taproot" as they are independent clauses?

     Added

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.
   • Please include page numbers for the Robson souces. For example, I believe the 1993 article is pages 67 to 70.

     Added

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Spot checks confirm Robson 1993 and Ocak et al. 2009 confirm that they cover the topic.
   • Crockett & Robson 2011 finishes on page 13 so I believe fn 12 is incorrect.

     Yep typo, corrected to page 13.

   it contains no original research;

   • All statements are referenced.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig gives a 8.3% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Key facts are covered.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article covers an academic discussion on its taxonomy in a balanced manner.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images are marked with an appropriate CC tag.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • The sole image is a map. Is there one of the plant?

     I was able to find a holotype collection that is freely licensed. Unfortunately there aren't any of the plant in the wild.

     Thank you. The image is CC tagged.

@Fritzmann2002: An interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Simongraham: I believe I've made the required changes, thanks especially for catching the ref page error. Let me know if there is anything else you catch! Fritzmann (message me) 13:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002: That looks excellent. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 12:09, 15 July 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.