Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/Hypericum sechmenii
Add topic
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Science.
It is adapted from the Wikipedia page Hypericum sechmenii. It contains some or all of that page's content licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License and will also be used to update that article after peer review.You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
QID: Q131333897
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Jacob Schepmann. "Hypericum sechmenii". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q131333897.
License: CC-BY-SA 4.0
Editors:Alex O. Holcombe 
contact
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article Hypericum sechmenii
Hypericum sechmenii, or Seçmen's St John's wort, is a rare species of flowering plant of the St John's wort family (Hypericaceae) that is found in the Eskişehir Province of central Turkey. It was first described in 2009 by Turkish botanists Atila Ocak and Onur Koyuncu, who named the species in honor of Özcan Seçmen, a fellow botanist. They assigned the species to the genus Hypericum, and Norman Robson later placed H. sechmenii into the section Adenosepalum.
Hypericum sechmenii is a perennial herb that usually grows in clusters of stems 3–6 centimeters (1–2 inches) tall and blooms in June and July. The stems of the plant are smooth and lack hairs, while the leaves are leathery and do not have leafstalks. Its flowers are arranged in clusters that form a flat-topped shape known as a corymb, and each flower possesses five bright yellow petals. Several species are similar in appearance to H. sechmenii, with only minor physical differences that set them apart. It is closely related to Hypericum huber-morathii, Hypericum minutum, and Hypericum thymopsis.
Found among limestone rocks, Hypericum sechmenii has an estimated distribution of only a few square kilometers across two localities, with fewer than 250 surviving plants. Despite containing druse crystals and toxic chemicals that are thought to deter herbivory, the species is threatened by overgrazing from livestock, as well as by other factors like climate change and habitat loss.
Pass. Report from WMF copyvios tool ("23% similarity" to one journal article) flagged some false positives (not regarded as plagiarism) due to technical phrases and references matching wording in a journal article Aoholcombe (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Peer review 1
[edit source]
reviewer-annotated pdf
Review by Zeki Aytaç , Gazi University
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
• Is the language clear and unambiguous? Yes
• Does the introduction summarise the relevant and up-to-date background? Yes
• Is the question being addressed defined? Yes
• Are figures fully described? Yes
• Does the abstract effectively summarise the work? Yes
• Does the lay summary (if included) capture the key points of the work while being understandable to a reader with only secondary-school background? Partly yes.
Also see PDF with Track Changes
I have reviewed the suggested changes, and have made edits accordingly. Many of the criticisms contravene the Wikipedia standard Manual of Style, and I thus did not implement them. My response to the review is summarized below:
- Added authorial attributions to the summary, as that is exclusive to the journal article, but have omitted them from the body as per the MOS
- Also per the MOS, Wikipedia uses "Turkey" in the English version, as opposed to "Türkiye"
- Changed to active tense in last sentence of 2nd paragraph per review
- Added caption to first picture
- I have retained much of the additional clarifying language in the description section. While this is not usually present in botanical literature, it was required to be readable to a lay audience (which is the goal of this overview) as evidenced by lengthy discussion at a previous Featured Article Candidacy
- Changed "housed" to "desposited"
- I believe the "Literature??" note in the taxonomy section is asking about the mentioned article. It is linked in a citation at the end of the information it supports, one sentence later, as per the MOS
- Adjusted later image captions as suggested
- herbariums --> herbaria
- Removed coordinates as suggested
I believe that covers all of the marked points in the review. If the reviewer has any other suggestions or sticking points, I am happy to have further discussion or make necessary edits. Thank you for your time, sir! Fritzmann2002 (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Peer review 2
[edit source]
Review by Ian Alexander , Wikipedia
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
The subject is a review article based on an established Wikipedia article with ‘Featured article’ status. It was created in 2018, revised in 2021 for its Good Article review, and again in 2023 for its Featured Article review. It has been maintained since then with mostly minor changes.
The section headings below are based on the peer review guidelines and do not in themselves imply any opinion about the article.
I am reviewing the article as a biology-trained Wikipedian, not as a Hypericum specialist.
ACCURACY OF CONTENT
_Incorrect statements_
‘Conservation’ has “an area assumed to be smaller than 10 km2” while ‘Distribution and habitat’ has “on Arayit Mountain is estimated to be 2 km2 … [the other] … smaller”. These are not quite in conflict, but if we have the lower estimate (less than 4 km2, it seems) then the higher one is at best redundant; further, the two sections overlap, creating repetition. Some rework seems to be needed here.
- I have adjusted the first statement to read "only a few square kilometers across two localities". The 10 sq km figure came from the first description of the species, and was more or less an educated guess by Ocak & Koyuncu. The more specific areas were analyzed later, and represent a more accurate survey of the distribution. Either way, the overview in the lead didn't need to be quite so exact to begin with.
_Support by references_ All the claims appear to be properly sourced.
_Coverage of important recent papers_ As noted below in ‘Reflects current thinking’, little further work appears to have been published on the species.
_Obsolete references_ “no conservational measures had been taken as of 2013”. – it would be good to update this. In addition, the passage of time, the noted threats, and the lack of conservation measures raises the question of whether the “an estimated 250 surviving plants” remains current. The implication is that the ‘Conservation’ section should be updated, even if it is only to say that as of 2025, little more is known.
- This was also a point of contention during the Featured Article Candidacy. The current state was a bit of a compromise, but I have added an aside that "As of 2025, no additional information on the conservation of H. sechmenii has been published." I think such a qualifier is warranted in this non-encyclopedic, academic environment.
BALANCE
_Reflects current thinking_
The species was described in 2009 and the article necessarily relies substantially on Ocak et al’s 2009 paper, supported by Yaylaci et al’s 2013 study. A Google Scholar search does not find substantial more recent material on the species, with some comparative anatomical studies and brief mentions of the species in work on other members of the genus.
A 2012/2013 paper ) by Ocak et al (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257447615_Palynological_investigations_on_some_Hypericum_taxa_Hypericaceae_growing_naturally_in_Turkey looks at the distribution of species in the genus using pollen analysis. From the abstract, it looks as if this paper may be worth citing even if it adds little to the overall picture.
- I had thought so too, but unfortunately it does not seem to discuss H. sechmenni or section Adenosepalum at all
A 2019 review (https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/910115) summarizes earlier work on species in the genus without identifying more recent work on H. sechmenii. Accordingly it seems that the article reflects current thinking on the species.
_Important facts missing_
The article appears to cover the key facts.
_Due weight for viewpoints in literature_
I could not find evidence of significant alternative viewpoints on this species.
_Opinions clearly indicated_
The article reports the scientific claims neutrally. The summaries in Wikipedia’s voice fairly reflect the cited claims.
ACCESSIBILITY
_Clarity_
The article is clearly written. The phrase “similar glands have been shown to contain compounds…” could be simplified to “similar glands contain compounds…”.
- Done
_Illustrations misleading or incomplete_
Figure 3 “Rocky hills near Kaymaz like these are the habitat of Hypericum sechmenii” shows a photograph of a church in a grassy and hilly setting. While not definitely wrong, this is not ideal as a depiction of the rocky habitat.
- Would this file be more suitable? I could include it instead or in addition if you think so. I want to include a picture that is from the actual listed localities, and good candidates are (obviously) limited
- Yes, please replace the image.
_Understandable by a generalist_
As a biologically-minded Wikipedian, I suppose I am close to the “generalist” indicated here. I found the article plain enough.
_Lead understandable by general audience_
The lead, with a short summary in addition, is brief and plainly written. The phrase “druse crystals” is wikilinked, but a gloss might be helpful (in the same style as the gloss on “corymb”).
- I've described them as "inorganic chemicals" in the Vegetative structures section; do you think that is sufficient or would more glossing be beneficial?
Good evening Alexander, and thank you for taking the time to review! I believe I have responded to all of the above points, please let me know if there is anything additional I can do for you. Fritzmann2002 (discuss • contribs)
- Ok, but please replace that image. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)