Talk:Hammarbya

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.

---

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

Nominator: HolyEgg (talk · contribs) 17:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 07:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll take this one. A remarkable transformation of what was a minimal article.

Comments

• Caption "a close-up photograph of a flower" needs rework. "A single flower" could be sufficient, or you might want to explain briefly which of the green parts seen are part of the flower, for instance. The image would be made more legible by preceding it with an image of the flower-spike (see 'Images' below).

I made another attempt at a caption and will upload a photo of the inflorescence, as suggested. HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done HolyEgg (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• The measurements in inches to 3 places of decimals seem spuriously precise; please round them to 2 places (using the parameter in the convert template).

 Done, except for the lip measurements, where two significant digits are supported HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Feather mosses" should at least be glossed Hypnales.

 Done HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• "such as Calcium, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus" – all lower-case please.

 Done HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• "in Tver Oblast": seems like too much precision, without helping most readers. Perhaps say instead "in Western Russia".

 Done HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• "Geographic distribution" –> "Distribution".

 Done HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Distribution: a map would be helpful, either a PD / CC-by map from a published source or a new one based on existing sources. There are blank base maps on Commons; editing one of those with Powerpoint to add the distribution areas allows a .SVG file to be saved, and that can then be uploaded to Commons.

I agree that a map would be helpful and appreciate the suggestion for how to make one. If a map illustrates which countries the plant is present in, do you think that those same countries should be listed in prose as well (as they already are), or would it be better to describe the distribution more generally? HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

If there's a map, the prose can certainly be simplified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

How does it look now? I have to admit that trying to match Russian administrative districts from the map in Tatarenko et al. to those in the blank map I pulled from Wikimedia (which uses the Robinson projection) was a humbling experience, considering that I call myself a geometer!

Have I provided appropriate attribution to the blank map I used? HolyEgg (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Seems fine, I doubt anyone could do better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• "various authors placed the species in the genera..." – this may just about be sufficient for GA under the "main points" criterion. All the same, it would be best to provide the authors' names and dates with their individual proposed genera. Citations to the primary sources (given in POWO) would be appropriate for this.

I was intimidated by some of these primary sources but will work on this later HolyEgg (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

 Done I was able to find scans of the protologues for Orchis paludosa, Malaxis paludosa, and Sturmia paludosa but not for Epipactis paludosa. I hope that the POWO citation suffices for the authorship and date for that one.HolyEgg (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Images

• All the images are on Commons, are clearly relevant, and appear to be correctly licensed.

• File:Hammarbya paludosa gemmae.jpg is copied from iNaturalist where user Elias marked it "no rights reserved cc0" [Public Domain]. This should be stated on the Commons page.

I am confused—iNaturalist (https://www.inaturalist.org/photos/401269303) shows me a CC-BY 4.0 license for the image. HolyEgg (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

So it does. The more general tag was for the whole set, but the image-specific tag must take precedence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Now I understand. I think this is a quirk of how iNaturalist presents copyright. The observation itself (i.e. location data, notes, comments, identifications) is CC0 (at least for this user's observations), but the copyright licensing for the images is presented separately. This will be helpful for me to keep in mind, since I upload lots of content from iNaturalist. HolyEgg (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Consider whether Elias's (excellent) photo of the flower-spike www.inaturalist.org/observations/226271261, first image, should be uploaded to Commons and included here (like the above item, same license).

 Done although I added a photograph already on Commons, which showed the entire inflorescence rather than a detail HolyEgg (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources

• It would be helpful and improve maintainability if the refs were renamed legibly, e.g. ":2" to "Smith 2020".

 Done my penance for using the visual editor

• All the sources are clearly relevant and reliable.

• Titles of sources in foreign languages should be provided also in English translation using the parameter "|trans-title=" .

 Done thanks for pointing this out! Note that the title for [23] is Хаммарбия болотная Hammarbya paludosa (L.) O.Kuntze, and the part in Cyrillic is just a transliteration of the Latin name. Would you translate the title as Hammarbya paludosa (L.) O.Kuntze? Also, does the website name (Красная книга Украины, which translates to Red Book of Ukraine) bear translating? HolyEgg (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The species name is as it is; website names are transliterated not translated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I follow—can you confirm that [23] looks good? I want to check whether the title "Hammarbya paludosa (L.) O.Kuntze" is an appropriate translation of the title "Хаммарбия болотная Hammarbya paludosa (L.) O.Kuntze" and whether the website name "Красная книга Украины" also needs to be translated (to "Red Book of Ukraine"). HolyEgg (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources are fine; translate article titles but not website names, just transliterate those into Latin (a–z) characters.

• Spot-checks: [1] ok; [3] ok; [5] (sample) seems ok: I note that it puts "petals" and "sepals" in quotes with alternative terminology; [7] (sample) ok; [13] ok; [20] ok; [26] ok.

For [5], I agree that it's strange that the authors put petals and sepals in quotes and use more general terms, but all (or nearly all) other sources use the terms petal and sepal. I used [5] as the reference for most morphology because it gives a more global review of the species than many of the other sources, which are largely nation- or continent-specific. I am happy to change the reference here if you think it would be an improvement. HolyEgg (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Just leave it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Summary

This article is almost at GA level; I have identified only some very minor quibbles which need attention (please reply to the comments individually above). Good work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments! I have addressed the feedback as best I can. Let me know if there are more improvements worth pursuing. HolyEgg (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Super. It's a GA. Linnaeus is smiling contentedly at you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2026 (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.

Did you know nomination

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 360° twists in the flower stalks of the bog adder's-mouth orchid sparked a public debate between Charles Darwin and Asa Gray over the role of God in natural selection?

• Source:

  [Gray's] own view was that God actively guided, or intentionally predetermined, which variations would occur, where, and in what order, and that natural selection did the rest. (As if God directly or indirectly caused Malaxis to vary in one direction, and several species of Catasetum to vary in the opposite direction, with 360° and 0° outcomes in mind!) And Gray even advised Darwin—in print—to take the same position in order to avoid the charge that God had no role in his system.... Darwin later rebuked Gray implicitly and explicitly—in print—and fairly scorchingly.

Beatty, John (2006). "Chance Variation: Darwin on Orchids". Philosophy of Science. 73 (5): 629–641. doi:10.1086/518332

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by HolyEgg (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

HolyEgg (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Newly promoted GA and no QPQ required. Good to go! Htanaungg (talk) 14:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)