Jump to content

Talk:Hypericum perforatum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHypericum perforatum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 27, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 20, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hypericum perforatum was a common component of classical cure-all concoctions called theriacs?

Use as liquor flavoring

[edit]

In Sweden, and I presume other countries, St John's Wroth is used to flavor "Brännvin", i.e. har liquor, to make a blood-red colored snaps. This page does only discuss it's medicinal use, and it's effect on the ecology of various places. There's a lot of "rules" as how to pick the buds (as, according to the enthusiast only the bugs are good for flavoring), e.g. they shall be picked on a warm dry day, after 6 pm o' clock, one mustn't touch the buds with one's fingers as that will release hypericin (it's supposed to be saved for the liquor), etc. etc. While it may be a niche field, it's certainly the most common use for St John's worth by ordinary people (whom rarely make herbal supplements at home, I guess). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.129.166 (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dosage?

[edit]

The article says nothing (unless I've missed it) about recommended dosage. Given that the recommended dosage differs markedly from brand to brand, some info on this would be appreciated.

Peterdwise (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PHARMMOS we usually don't give dosing information due to the fact it can be construed as personal medical advice. I think we should remove dosing information completely due to a number of reasons:
1. It can, as I previously mentioned, be construed as personal medical advice. And quite honestly, what other value could it serve?
2. It can be seen as giving undue weight to certain products, due to the fact it's impossible to generalise dosing to every product due to the high degree of variability in the chemical composition of products.
3. Because as I previously mentioned there's a high degree of variability in available products.
Fuse809 (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiinflammatory properties

[edit]

Hi @Seppi333:,

We've worked together on a lot of articles and I have tremendous respect for your judgement. But its hard for me to understand your restoration of "anti-inflammatory" as a property of this herb. Yes, the references you added are secondary, and they do state that, but if you read the article the evidence they quote all seems to be in vitro, which you of all people understand is a far cry from supporting a medical claim.

Could you elaborate on your reasoning here? Many thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use in vitro data or animal studies to make any medical claims per WP:MEDRS, specifically WP:MEDANIMAL; however, this applies directly to the source in question. If a review or professional med/pharm web/book source indicates that something holds for animals or in vitro, article text must reflect this as such. If the webpage or review indicates that this is for humans or merely implies this as is often the case (e.g., claims made without indicating a species in any paper with "Human" in the mesh terms but no other animal species or "animals" listed there), then we don't go through and examine the primary sources they cited; the statement made in the secondary source is all that matters (even if it's completely wrong), not the cited primary source. This is reflected in the cautionary note at the bottom paragraph of WP:MEDASSESS.
If we excluded animal and in vitro evidence from all reviews in writing medical articles, we wouldn't have much, if any, cell signaling content in probably most of our articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue with you too much about this, we've done too many good things together. But I'd say that we do include animal and in vitro data when it has been cited in a review, but we make it very clear that it is in vitro or animal data only. The word "anti-inflammatory" implies medical use in people to my mind. Certainly I do not think the average reader will finish that paragraph and come away with the message "it inhibits certain enzymes involved in the inflammatory cascade in vitro but god knows if the active principle is orally available or has any effect at all in people".

I realize that the review said "anti-inflammatory", but I think we have a responsibility to our readers in spite of whatever poor choice of language or ignorance is expressed by a reviewer. And I shudder to think what the EBM people here would say if we tried to call sitagliptin an anti-inflammatory based on a review that cited in vitro enzyme inhibition data.

I've said my piece, please take it into consideration. I won't pursue this further. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's ;itt;e mention except in passing of the main use of this herb for me, which is it's healing stimulation, using oil made from soaking the flowers in olive oil for a few weeks until it is bright pink. Wounds heal in hour instead of days, burns and scalds stop huring within minutes and don't blister. Yeah, all non scientific blah blah, except that humans have been using it for millenia for healing wounds, only recently have I see tablets containing it for depression. Are any qualified herbalists editing this page? As unless you are part of the herbalist world your knowledge won't be up to much. PetePassword (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean by unless you are part of the herbalist world your knowledge won't be up to much seems to be that scientific medical evidence doesn't matter for you. However, here it does, and all medical claims must be sourced to the standards of WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacokinetic Interactions

[edit]

Hello Page Owners/Experts,

As a common reader to this page, I wish to highlight some text that appeared to me to be in contradiction with the pages on 3A4/2C9.

First the quote:

Pharmacokinetic interactions

St John's wort has been shown to cause multiple drug interactions through induction of the cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C9, and CYP1A2 (females only). This drug-metabolizing enzyme induction results in the increased metabolism of certain drugs, leading to decreased plasma concentration and potential clinical effect.

So, here is my concern:

If I read this quote on its own, my conclusion would be that SJW induces CYP3A4 and CYP2C9[1]. i.e. Both. However, if I read on the pages for CYP3A4[2] and CYP2C9[3], it appears to me that SJW induces 3A4 but inhibits 2C9. i.e. I have noticed an apparent contradiction.

Please take a look, and fix or clarify as appropriate.

Thanks!

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypericum_perforatum
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP3A4
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP2C9

Simple in ca (talk) 03:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the source given says nothing about CYP2C9, so I removed the reference to this in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I feel that the page needs some reorganization of the interactions section. It's a bit scattered, but I'm not sure how to approach the clean-up. If there are any users that especially agree with me and can take it upon themselves to clean up the page, please do. JCoppess18 (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hypericum perforatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mean Temperature

[edit]

I refer to my undo earlier today. My reading of the intent of the sentence was that the problem occurred above 24 degrees at a particular time during the plants annual cycle, ie mid-summer, due to certain biological conditions. The problems would not occur in, say, autumn (even though that would presumably be not relevant because the mid summer temp would presumably also be above 24 degrees if the autumn temp was too. It seemed to me the reference to the southern hempishere was clumsy and the then editor had just copied a reference from a book published in the southern hemisphere. But, i'm no plant expert. I'm better with grammar and sentences. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hypericum perforatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In vitro research

[edit]

Removed this mess as primary, mostly outdated, in vitro research as WP:PRIMARY, leading to a host of unwarranted speculation about what effects may exist in vivo. Needs WP:MEDRS reviews, which evidently do not exist. --Zefr (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your similar changeset in Hyperforin and thought it was perhaps a bit overzealous (see the talk page). Any chance some of it could stay? I think it'd be a terrible shame if all of it would have to stay removed. – Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical evidence

[edit]

Jokefish added this content which I moved here per WP:BRD:

Its therapeutic values have been recognized since antiquity and extracts of the flower have been used to treat a range of symptoms for over 2000 years[1]. St John's wort is a popular herbal remedy used in the treatment of depression. While high-quality clinical evidence for its antidepressive effects remain limited, a number of studies have shown the remedy to be superior to placebo and as effective as SSRIs[2].

References

  1. ^ Gupta, R.K.; Möller, H.-J. (2003). "St. John's Wort. An option for the primary care treatment of depressive patients?" (PDF). European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience. 253: 140–148. doi:10.1007/s00406-003-0417-6.
  2. ^ Rahimi, R; Nikfar, S; Abdollahi, M (1 February 2009). "Efficacy and tolerability of Hypericum perforatum in major depressive disorder in comparison with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: A meta-analysis". Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry. 33 (1): 118–127. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2008.10.018.

Addressing the points: 1) the Gupta article is not a systematic review of high-quality clinical trials, is 16 years out of date (see WP:MEDDATE, advising reviews of 5 years or less), and in 2003, the journal had a relatively poor reputation and low impact factor, shown here; i.e., it is not a good WP:MEDSCI source. 2) The statement "extracts of the flower have been used to treat a range of symptoms for over 2000 years" is really a perpetuation of folklore, is unverifiable exaggeration (WP:V), and has no place in the article. 3) While the 2009 Rahimi article provides a meta-analysis indicating equivalence to SSRIs, a 2017 meta-analysis and review concluded the studies were of too short duration to be conclusive of effect. Bottom line: the literature is inconclusive, does not meet WP:MEDRS, and should not be highlighted in the lede. --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

a 2017 meta-analysis and review concluded the studies were of too short duration to be conclusive of effect - Did it REALLY? Lets look at what the actual review's summary of their conclusion says:

For patients with mild-to-moderate depression, St John's wort has comparable efficacy and safety when compared to SSRIs. Follow-up studies carried out over a longer duration should be planned to ascertain its benefits.

(They also mention elsewhere in the abstract that dropout & discontinuance rates are significantly lower than with SSRIs).

So, they recommend for the future that follow up studies for longer durations should be conducted. That's perfectly prudent and sensible advice. It also says in its conclusion the very same thing that you seem to seek to suppress. It does NOT say, as you appear to strongly suggest in your comments, that those studies ought not be considered of any value due to their "too short duration", and that the baby should be therefore be thrown out with the bathwater. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. or St ?

[edit]

The answer depends on WP:Engvar. St is correct in British English usage and St. is correct in American English usage. The article adopted St right from the start. Plantsurfer 19:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St not St.

[edit]

There has been a couple of recent reverts of an edit to replace a small number, and hence inconsistent, uses of ‘St.’ with ‘St’. Reasons the latter should be used:

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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of name

[edit]

This article gives two very different accounts of where the name came from. It would be nice to settle on one before this goes to DYK. Primergrey (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed something, but under Description we say
The dots are conspicuous when held up to the light, giving the leaves the "perforated" appearance to which the plant's Latin name refers.
And in Etymology we say
The specific epithet perforatum is Latin, referring to the perforated appearance of the plant's leaves.
The common name "St John's wort" may refer to any species of the genus Hypericum. Therefore, Hypericum perforatum is sometimes called "common St John's wort" or "perforate St John's wort" to differentiate it.
St John's wort is named as such because it commonly flowers, blossoms and is harvested at the time of the summer solstice in late June, around St John's Feast Day on 24 June. The herb would be hung on house and stall doors on St John's Feast day to ward off evil spirits and to safeguard against harm and sickness to people and live-stock. The genus name Hypericum is possibly derived from the Greek words hyper (above) and eikon (picture), in reference to the tradition of hanging plants over religious icons in the home during St John's Day.
It all looks perfectly consistent to me?--Nø (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the traditional medicine section; The red, oily extract of H. perforatum has been used in the treatment of wounds, including by the Knights Hospitaller, the Order of St John, after battles in the Crusades, which is most likely where the name derived. Primergrey (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements Coordination

[edit]

@Fritzmann2002 and @MtBotany are working on improving the article. Fritzmann2002 is starting with Taxonomy and MtBotany is looking for some additional plant description references and possible improvements.

Some sources MtBotany found while searching
https://archive.org/details/biostor-62076/page/83 Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 1976 some information about chemistry.
https://archive.org/details/practicalhintsre00shie/page/6/mode/2up?q=%22Hypericum+perforatum%22 Rather lyrical description of Euspilapteryx auroguttella (as Gracilaria auroguttella) eating leaves.
https://archive.org/details/medicinal-plants/who-monographs-on-selected-medicinal-plants-vol-2/page/149 WHO monographs on selected medicinal plants, contains excellent description and information about odor, flavor, how dried material can be tested. Also information on medical use to 1999.

MtBotany (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going to look for more sources on exact leaf size today. I'm seeing different numbers so far. MtBotany (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002 There is a list of common names in the source I named "WHO". I don't want to step on any edits you're making to Etymology, but if you're busy with other edits I'll add in these English names leaving out all the names from other languages. devil's scourge, hardhay, klamath weed, Lord God's wonder plant, perforate St John's wort, and witches's herb.

MtBotany (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://archive.org/details/medicinal-plants/who-monographs-on-selected-medicinal-plants-vol-2/page/150/mode/1up WHO monograph on the aerial parts of the plant - great descriptions on the flowers and adjacent parts Fritzmann (message me) 15:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an idea, a section for "similar species" under the description that tell the differences between H. perforatum and closely related plants could be very useful. Robson gives a good diagnosis of this in the 2002 reference Fritzmann (message me) 19:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea. So far the only specific information I have found about telling one species from another seemed possibly unreliable due to focusing on Great Britain and being published by a religious society, but I'm continuing to look.
I got in with more detail distribution information today. Mostly POWO information, but I checked some with GBIF.
I also think we need more information about the beetles and moths that rely upon Hypericum perforatum as a food source. Most of the information I've found on that relates to biocontrol, but it seems reliable for their native habitat as well. MtBotany (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/plants/forb/hypper/all.html Great dataset for invasiveness, habitats, and species it grows with in the United States Fritzmann (message me) 20:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting close:
  • The toxicity section needs some work and a decent overhaul
  • The phytochemistry section needs a major expansion
  • The history section could use some post-Linnean info
  • The description section would benefit from looking at similar/related species
Other than that I'm not sure if there's anything else, I think after those are done we could probably submit for a peer review or just go straight to GAN. There's a contest going on right now so we may stand a better chance of getting a review before too long. Fritzmann (message me) 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put in some more herbivores today. I also want to read over what I've done with description very closely and make sure it is both correct and flows well. I'm not a great copy editor, I'm much better at the basic research and translating from "botanese" to English, but I can at least try to improve the readability of my text. MtBotany (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else you think I can do? I've pretty much wrapped up the sections I was hoping to get done, I think the article is getting pretty close for a review to start. Fritzmann (message me) 00:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002 I apologize for the radio silence. I've been distracted by having strained my back slightly. There are other things I would like to get in there. I did find some sources for differentiating between different species. Going to work on that when I can concentrate, but if you want to put it up for review before I get to that it is fine. MtBotany (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I will do is put it in the queue for a Peer Review. That way we can get a third opinion on it before GAN, while also not rushing the process at all. Fritzmann (message me) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MtBotany: no luck on the peer review so far. I think I am going to go ahead and submit the article to GAN. I would like to get a reviewer before the drive ends; if we wait until then it could be quite some time. Even if there are some small mistakes we should be able to catch those during the review. Fritzmann (message me) 15:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Effects on Young Animals

[edit]

I have figured out where the statement about younger animals being more susceptible than older animals to the toxicity of H. perforatum likely came from. https://archive.org/details/journalamer46ameruoft/page/152 Unfortunately it is in a section about Hypericum triquetrifolium then called Hypericum Crispum. While it is not unreasonable to assume that it may also be true for H. perforatum, I have not yet seen a reliable source stating it.

Of more relevance the same 1914 article it states that at high doses a preparation of H. perforatum "has a very toxic action on the heart" in an experiment on dogs. I'm not entirely sure if that would be a good fact to add to the article or not. It is a very old experiment. MtBotany (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, possibly a very brief mention of the effect on dogs would be appropriate? But yeah I was also dubious of the claim of its effect on younger animals, that was one of the reasons I tagged the section. My vote would be to cut that claim entirely - it isn't particularly important anyways. Fritzmann (message me) 01:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Femke (talk · contribs) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I hope to review this over the weekend. I've done a first read-through, and it looks good. I only noticed one criterion that needs quite a bit more work: 1a (Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable), in particular WP:EXPLAINLEAD. While at some places, jargon is explained elegantly by providing context, there is a lot of it, and the lead is likely to be read by people without background knowledge of things like a "type species", stamens, pistils, cosmopolitan distribution. Unavoidable jargon can be made easier to guess if surrounding words are easy. Avoid difficult words like conspicious and noxious, and replace them with plain English like "clearly visible" and "harmful". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Femke, thanks for picking this up! Would you like me to go through and see what I can do in that regard before you begin the review? I could probably look at it tomorrow evening and at least take care of some of the low-hanging fruit. Fritzmann (message me) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be amazing :) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through quickly and caught what I could. A few notes: there is more information on the phytochemicals out there. However, most of it is just myriad studies on the essential oil or chemical composition of the plant. For other Hypericum species, I've devoted a greater amount of material to that section because it constituted the bulk of coverage by reliable sources. However, here there is a great deal of other info that I feel is much more important for the article, so I've kept the section very brief and just retained the table of concentrations from earlier in the article's history. If you feel that the section should be expanded, that can absolutely be done.
Additionally, I'd appreciate specific scrutiny towards the medicinal side of things in the article. It's an area that I am not at all familiar with the Wikipedia regulations for, and while we've done our best to keep it neutral and appropriate, lack of knowledge could certainly have led to some minor issues that more experienced eyes would catch. Again, the review is much appreciated! Fritzmann (message me) 22:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems I have to do this in two parts, given that my golfer's elbow is playing up again. So everything I can't do with voice dictation, will be done next week hopefully.

Lead:

  • I would not mentioned the type species in the first sentence or even in the lead. It's too difficult, and likely only of interest to a small portion of readers. The first sentence should invite people to read the article.
    • Removed mention
  • In the first sentence of the second paragraph, I would remove "in large amount", to improve prose.
    • Also removed

Description:

  • what is a taproot?
    • Added "central root" as a brief descriptor
  • What does it mean that the stems may appear jointed from leaf scars? I do not know whether leaf scar is.
    • Added additional context
  • Did you know you are free to leave out inches in scientific articles? It may improve readability.
    • I always forget to do this, thank you for the reminder
  • What are sepals?
    • Added "leaf-like" to describe the structures
  • What are riparian areas?
    • Noted they are along rivers
  • Insert a comma after in addition, before its leaves have fewer translucent glands
    • Done
  • in the paragraph about other native species in North America, the second example doesn't really explain how it is different from St John's wort, is it more delicate?
    • Yes, made it more clear that it is smaller and more delicate
  • When describing the most common active chemicals, three chemicals seem to be named, where the wording says "the two most common active chemicals"
    • Reworded and hopefully made the whole sentence more clear


Taxonomy

  • what is the type species?
  • Knowing nothing about plants sourcing, I wonder whether a source from 2002 is sufficiently recent to source a sentence like "the current accepted placement". Is there a more modern source?
    • Yes, there are likely some more modern sources for the placement; however, Norman Robson is pretty much the definitive expert on Hypericum taxonomy. This reference is from the first part of his monograph on the genus, which was finished just a few years ago. It's probably the most reliable source we've got just because of his expertise, which is why I opted to use it for much of the info including the subgeneric arrangement.
  • allopolyploid, what is it?
    • Explained
      • If I understand correctly, this means that the original plan and had 16 chromosomes. is that right? and should it be spelled-out?
        • Yes, both original plants had 16 chromosomes. That is demonstrated in the equation for the hybridization after the first paragraph
  • What does it mean to be intermediate for at least a single generation?
    • Having trouble explaining this one. I think it's a little clearer now but if not let me know.
      • I think it's clear to me.

History

  • consider using the {{lang}} template for non-English words. This ensures that text-to-speech software knows how to pronounce it, so it improves accessibility.
    • Added to all but "fuga daemonium," I don't think it's proper Latin but rather a weird medieval dialect, so I'd rather not give it a language code.

infraspecifics

  • I don't know what that is, is there a better heading in plain English?
    • Changed to "subdivision," if you have other ideas I'd be happy to change it again
  • It may be good to spell out what SSP means the first time you use the abbreviation
    • Good idea, did the same for variety
  • what is an inflorescence?
    • Changed to "flower clusters"

Ecology

  • optional: the caption of country level distribution should not have "." At the end as it's a sentence fragment.
    • Good catch
  • The last sentence of distribution contains a typo in the fourth word
    • Yup
  • what is a soil seed bank?
    • Explained it is a place where seeds lie dormant underground in an ecosystem
  • What is a witches broom?
    • Name for deformity
  • What is girdling?
    • Explained
  • What is gall?
    • Explained
  • What is exudation?
    • Rewrote link
      • I don't think that works as an explanation; I was thinking of diarrhoea and vomiting, rather than the loss of fluids via pores and wounds. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's... not what it is though? Exudation is just a step in the process of inflammation that is caused by the exposure.
  • I would insert a comma after "in addition to other clinical signs"
    • Good call
  • the last sentence of invasiveness is a bit clumsy/ambiguous. I would say something like: insect herbivores have been introduced as biocontrol agents outside their native range. The most common are ... Insert
    • Split the sentence

Uses

  • what is the word that comes after "a standard component of" (my software doesn't know)
    • Changed to "ancient concoctions called theriacs". They're considered cure-alls but I feel like that term wouldn't be much more helpful
  • I don't understand the sentence these flower parts can be crushed, making a yellow green or brown bean powder with apparent oil droplets. The word apparent, should that be visible? I find it somewhat difficult to visualise a powder with oil droplets, but maybe that's just lack of imagination.
    • Yes, that's exactly correct. These parts are very high in oil and it is retained when they are crushed. I've changed to "visible", but I think that "powder" is not really the correct word for the product (makes it sound too fine). The image does a good job of illustrating what it actually is; herba hyperici is not homogenous, it's kind of a mix of the flower parts and excreted oil. I'm struggling to find an appropriate term that more accurately represents what the product really consists of and would greatly appreciate suggestions.
  • In terms of the medical aspects, I've only looked at the titles and publication dates of the papers that were cited. You typically want to cite reviews, medical textbooks or clinical guidelines from the last five years (WP:MEDRS). Sometimes, especially for smaller research areas, that might not be possible and you have to rely on reviews from a bit longer ago. I see there was a 2008 Cochrane review, which is one of the gold standards of reviews, so it might still be usable just about. I see the citation 58 to the National Centre for complementary and integrative health stems from 2016,. Have they updated their website? Some of the sources on interactions and side effects seem to be primary sources that are quite old. Can you replace them with more recent secondary sources? What makes drugs.com reliable?
    • I've removed the second paragraph from of traditional medicine that relied on drugs.com. It was a holdover from before we started to work on the article and I've been waffling on whether to cut it. Drugs.com does not seem to be a great source after looking at some other discussions on it, so I've removed it as a reference. It mostly duplicated other, better sources anyways, so not much of a loss.
    • The NCCIH did update in 2020, all the info in the article appears to be the same though so I've just changed the ref to reflect that.
    • I will do a deeper look into some more secondary sources, but the best one seems to be that NCCIH reference and I don't want to rely too heavily on that one site.

I still have to do a spot check, check the image licensing and delve further into the medical sourcing, but this should give you a good start. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add, WP:accessibility is not part of the GA criteria. Still, it would be good if the article were to be made more accessible. You can have a look at WP:ACCIM further description of how to add alts 2 images, set relative sizes, how to avoid sandwiching. Finally WP:NOHIDE indicates that tables should not be hidden by default. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, some great input so far. I'll get started on it here shortly and will then start to work on some of the accessibility points as well. Fritzmann (message me) 15:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to all of the prose review so far; again, very grateful for the perceptive feedback. I just had a few questions that I've put in my bulleted responses, and will definitely need to do work on the medical sourcing, but I will wait to do that until you've completed the review so we aren't working past each other. Fritzmann (message me) 16:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost final bits of review:

  • They only successfully create galls on species in the genus Hypericum --> I do not think the source supports this statement, as a there is a second host species mentioned.
    • Removed, I don't think MtBotany will mind.
  • Second sentence about toxicity in livestock seem to be sited completely to 2 primary papers about sheep. Furthermore, there is close paraphrasing. Are there secondary sources on this about more species of animals?
  • The start of the second paragraph seems based on the source about horses. This doesn't become clear till the third sentence.
  • The bit on antidepressant use is decent. I think you can leave out the 2008 review, as the other reviews are more recent and come to similar conclusions. The sentence about St John's wort being prescribed for children And adolescents in Germany is a bit outdated. is there a more recent review about this? https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14936 says it's considered a drug in various European countries.
  • The interactions part needs significant work. Many of the sources are much too old, and newer reviews have been published. You could try and rewrite using https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.14936, https://academic.oup.com/jpp/article/71/1/129/6122037?login=false, and the NIH source. Furthermore, this name dropping drugs isn't that insightful. what are the drugs used for? The NIH source does say.
  • The sentence about dementia failed verification.
  • Citation number 70 (Zang) seems to be a primary source about mice.
  • I did a few other spots checks that did pan out, but given the fact that there were problems with quite a few of the checks I did, I'll do another spot check after these issues are addressed. You may want to double check text written by others. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Femke: I've rewritten the toxicity and interactions sections. They are somewhat shorter, but I think they provide a sufficiently broad summary. I feel that more in-depth discussions of the interactions may be warranted, but would probably fit better on the hyperforin or hypericin pages. My apologies for the tardiness of my responses, in all honesty I've been procrastinating on these parts that I'm not as comfortable with in favor of simpler work. I'm happy to respond to any other input you have. Fritzmann (message me) 01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about time, I'm in no hurry.
Did you double check for text-source integrity issues? In the new text on medication, I checked two statements. One is the reason why St John's wort interacts (the source does not say it's because of allergenic properties), and the second is the severity of side effects. I don't think the source makes the distinction between more and less severe side effects. About breakthrough bleeding, it seems to downplay this, as it's a very common mild side effect of oral contraceptives. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the statement on allergenic properties? I'm pretty sure that was in the old text because it is not there any more. About the side effects, I've changed the wording from "severe" to "rare", since the latter listed ones are grouped together in the source as occurring at a much lower rate. Fritzmann (message me) 19:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement on allergenic properties already. I was wondering if you've double checked for further text source integrity issues? I've done two spot checks, which both came up with clear issues. I'm willing to do a third, but if I keep on finding issues I'll need to fail the article, which would be a shame. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'll comb through today. I think at this point, pretty much every part of the old article has been rewritten, but a thorough text-source check at this point on my ends seems more than warranted. Fritzmann (message me) 15:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've double checked some areas I had suspicions might be problematic, and made some improvements. Mostly just removing absolutes and adding context. I also changed a few references for more academically sound sources. I hope I've been thorough enough, but everything I found on that sweep was minor enough that I feel confident everything glaring has been taken care of. Fritzmann (message me) 02:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I final 5-source spot check didn't come up with further issues. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 18:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Fritzmann2002 (talk). Self-nominated at 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Hypericum perforatum; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: This article is new enough, as it was promoted to GA at 17:09, 27 September 2023‎. This article is long enough, at 22882 characters (3641 words) "readable prose size". This article is also well-sourced, and it is neutral. I verified all the sources that underpin the hooks, and all hooks are interesting. The images in the article are licensed appropriately for inclusion in this article; however, no image is used in this hook. I prefer the first hook, but all hooks are acceptable. West Virginian (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review West Virginian, as a note to the promoter: I picked the main hook as a safe option, but would honestly prefer the ALT1 to run. I think the alliteration, while it may be a bit kitschy, is nonetheless still catchy. Fritzmann (message me) 19:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that the Earwig score appears to reflect sites that copied our article. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ARIADNE7" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect ARIADNE7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § ARIADNE7 until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ARI7" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect ARI7 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § ARI7 until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"APOSPORY (locus)" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect APOSPORY (locus) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 7 § APOSPORY (locus) until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native to which countries

[edit]

Unders Distribution, there is a discrepancy between the map and the text, which says that the plant is native to Sudan, for example Spacecow2021 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch, I've updated the map to reflect the distribution listed at POWO, it should be accurate now. Fritzmann (message me) 13:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hypericum_perforatum&oldid=1193690189"