Talk:Hypericum huber-morathii

Hypericum huber-morathii is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Fritzmann (message me) at 02:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: Species of flowering plant in the St John's wort family Hypericaceae

Hypericaceae: Plants Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Hypericaceae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant family Hypericaceae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.HypericaceaeWikipedia:WikiProject HypericaceaeTemplate:WikiProject HypericaceaeHypericaceae articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Distribution of Hypericum huber-morathii.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article assigned by WP:GARC. I will get to this ASAP and plan to finish the review within 7 days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a check of certain items of the GA criteria, outstanding issues are in bold. I should have my spot check and prose review complete within 48 hours. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

There are a few names of authors, publishers, websites, etc. that aren't wikilinked where an article exists (eg. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, JSTOR, Robson, Norman (in the bibliography section)). I am not sure if it's required but it would make the reference section consistent.

Wrap the bibliography section within the {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} templates.

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No issues
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

Infobox image seems to be licensed under CC0-1.0 on the Natual History Museum website but is listed on commons as cc-by-sa-4.0.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Per MOS:ALT and for accessibility, the image in the infobox should have the image_alt parameter and perhaps (but not required) the image_caption parameter.

Overall:
Pass or Fail: