Talk:Urtica ferox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Former featured article candidateUrtica ferox is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleUrtica ferox 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
March 25, 2026Good article nomineeListed
June 14, 2026Peer reviewReviewed
July 17, 2026Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article
Close

Distribution

Citation needed for the distribution section, particularly as some of it is incorrect. Anywhere "to the" east of Otago would be in the Pacific, and if the intended claim is that ongaonga is not common "in the" east of Otago then I am sceptical - I live here and it seems pretty common to me. The "dryness" justification might imply central Otago? Whatever, citation is needed so we can see where the error is (it could well be my definition of "common", but I'd like a ref to tell me so). 139.80.40.239 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved - Beeveria (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Meter-long spines?

I don't fully understand what this sentence is trying to say, but it doesn't seem right: "The leaf shape is ovulate-triangulate with a serrated leaf margin each bearing a spine of up to 1 m (3 ft 3 in)." Is there a 1 mm spine at each serration of the leaf margin and an m was left out? Or is this a remnant from a different edit? I don't know the plant and don't feel comfortable guessing the intention here, but if you do please edit. Savaging (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@Savaging: Great catch - it's definitely a typo for millimetres. Prosperosity (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Move request relevant to this page

There is a move request at Ongaonga, New Zealand that relates to this page. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Metalicat (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)


Hello, I'll be reviewing this article against the good article criteria. Thanks for the nomination.

General comments

This is a well-structured species article which appears to have good source diversity and appropriate coverage across description, taxonomy, ecology, distribution and human uses. The images are well chosen and freely licensed. I have a number of prose and accuracy issues to raise, some of which will need source verification before I can pass. I've grouped them by section below.

Lead

  1. even has resulted in one recorded human death — awkward word order. Suggest has resulted in one recorded human death, or has even resulted in one recorded human death.
Done.
  1. The second paragraph opens with U. ferox is a plant usually avoided by people, but it did have some traditional and medicinal uses for the indigenous Māori people. This is repeated almost verbatim in the Uses section. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should summarise the body but not duplicate it this closely. Could one or the other be reworded?
How about now?

Description

  1. The leaf shape is ovulate-triangulate — I believe this should be "ovate-triangulate" or "ovate-triangular". "Ovulate" means bearing ovules (a reproductive structure), not a leaf shape. The Flora of New Zealand describes the leaves as "triangular to ovate-triangular". Can you check the cited source (Metcalf 2009, p. 106) to confirm?
Fixed. Only triangular is mentioned by Metcalfe. Allan described them as "ovate-triangular".
  1. with a serrated leaf margin each bearing a spine of up to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) — a spine of up to 1 metre on a leaf margin seems implausible on a plant that grows to 3 m tall, and the very next sentence says the spines are "generally no larger than 6 mm in length". I suspect this should be 1 cm (0.39 in). Can you verify against the source?
I was probably confused while editing so I removed it. The last part "generally no larger than 6 mm in length" is correct though.
  1. The leaves range from 3–5 cm (1.2–2.0 in) in width and 8–12 cm (3.1–4.7 in) in length, these are oppositely arranged — comma splice. This should be split into two sentences or joined with a semicolon.
Done.
  1. each containing one 1.5 mm long, seeds which take one month to germinate — broken syntax. "Seeds" should be singular ("seed") to agree with "one", and the comma after "long" is misplaced. Suggest something like: each containing a single seed, 1.5 mm long, which takes one month to germinate.
Done.
  1. Burrows (1996) found that U. ferox capable of building up a large seed bank — missing verb. Should read found that U. ferox is capable of building up or found that U. ferox was capable of building up.
Done.
  1. citing that European species in the genus Urtica produce seed banks — "citing that" is unusual phrasing. Suggest noting that or restructure.
Done.

Taxonomy

  1. There are sixty-nine species — per MOS:NUM, numbers of 10 and above should be written as figures. This should be "69 species".
Done. Should I change the same same in the other Urtica articles I edited?

Ecology

  1. to which they are essentially immune to — double "to". Should be to which they are essentially immune or which they are essentially immune to.
Done.
  1. have killed cattle, dogs, and horses in the past before — "in the past before" is redundant. Use either "in the past" or "before", not both.
Done.
  1. Populations of V. gonerilla have decreased, possibly in part because of people removing U. ferox plants after subjectively classifying them as an unwanted plant — does the source (Vennell 2019, p. 181) use the word "subjectively"? If not, this could constitute original research. If Vennell uses different framing, the sentence should reflect that.
He doesn't use the word, but in his book he states that "it is speculated that this may be a result of people treating ongaonga as a weed and removing it from bush [forests], lawns, and parks." It is opinionated if someone considers a plant a weed or not, especially a native plant, so therefore I think subjectively is fine, if not, I don't oppose removing it.

Toxins

  1. The toxins present in the spines contain the neurotransmitters: histamine, serotonin and acetylcholine — the colon after "neurotransmitters" is grammatically incorrect here, as what follows is not an independent clause or a list introduced by a complete sentence. Remove the colon: The toxins present in the spines contain the neurotransmitters histamine, serotonin and acetylcholine.
  2. There is also one other likely death, with the uncertainty of the death being solved by the pathologist years afterwards. — this sentence is unclear. Based on the cited NZ Herald source, the intended meaning appears to be that a pathologist retrospectively concluded, some fifteen years later, that the death of a young man in 2002 was likely caused by U. ferox. The sentence should be rewritten to convey this more clearly. As it stands, "the uncertainty of the death being solved" is hard to parse.
Possibly works here, I think.

Distribution

  1. It was believed by the botanist Thomas Cheeseman that Otago is the species' southern limit — unnecessarily passive. Suggest: The botanist Thomas Cheeseman believed that Otago was the species' southern limit.
Done.
  1. "Endemic" is wikilinked in both the lead and the Distribution section. Per MOS:LINK, wikilinks should generally appear once per article on first mention only. A quick pass to de-duplicate would be helpful.
Fixed, I think?

GA criteria assessment

More information Criterion, Met? ...
CriterionMet?Comments
1a (well-written) On holdSeveral prose issues noted above need fixing: grammar errors, typos, unclear sentences.
1b (verifiable, no original research) On holdThe "subjectively" query and the 1 m / ovulate-triangulate issues need source verification.
2a (lead)YesLead summarises the article adequately, though the near-duplication with the Uses section opening is worth addressing.
2b (structure)YesLogical section structure appropriate for a species article.
2c (consistent citations)YesHarvard referencing used consistently throughout.
3 (images)YesFreely licensed images with relevant captions and alt text.
4 (length/focus)YesAppropriately focused; no major digressions.
5 (stable)YesNo edit warring evident.
6 (neutral)YesSubject to the "subjectively" query above.
Close

Summary

The prose issues are straightforward to fix, but the measurement error (1 m spine) and the terminology issue (ovulate vs ovate) need source verification, and I'd like confirmation on whether "subjectively" reflects the source language. Happy to pass once these are addressed. Metalicat (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Metalicat. I addressed everything so far. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing everything so quickly. Two final suggestions, which I'd encourage you to make but which aren't blocking:
  1. Subjectively: Vennell's own phrasing ("treating ongaonga as a weed") is closer to the source. Consider: possibly in part because of people treating U. ferox as a weed and removing it.
  2. Second death: Still a little hard to parse. Something like A second death, that of a young man in 2002, was retrospectively attributed to U. ferox by a pathologist some fifteen years later would be clearer, but adjust the detail to match the source.

GA criteria has been met, Passing this now. Well-sourced species article with good structure and image selection. Nice work. Metalicat (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the pass and pleasant review! Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Urtica ferox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm hoping to bring this article to FAC, but would like to get some feedback first.

Thanks, Alexeyevitch(talk) 03:01, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately no comments after two weeks, so I'm closing this PR. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Urtica ferox

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get feedback before re-nominating at FAC. I previously nominated but was advised to get feedback on PR first. Comments would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

RoySmith

My apologies for the harsh review at FAC, but in the end I think bringing this back to PR was a good move. I once started a long-form essay on the topic and never finished it, but you might still get something useful out of User:RoySmith/essays/Choppiness. It's worth mentioning that this is a common problem with scientific articles and I suspect a large part of that is because it's typically how articles in academic journals are written. Shifting gears to a different style that's more appropriate for wikipedia can be a challenge. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

No prob. And yes, most scientific articles are written like that rather than books on historical topics. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

AxonsArachnida

I'll focus more on the research/literature side of things. Since you're planning to put this up for FA, I'll treat this as though I were reviewing it as such. Please do let me know when you send it for FA, I might have more thoughts by then. I'm aiming to begin working on this in the next week, but might be a little slow since I am quite busy at the moment. Feel free to give me a reminder if it seems like I've forgotten. AxonsArachnida (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay I lied I'm starting right away. I'll probably just slowly add comments over the next week or so. I'll leave a note to say when I'm done. AxonsArachnida (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
Okay @Alexeyevitch, this is all I have to give at the moment. I'll have another read through once you've had a chance to go through all this. If no one else does it, I'm also happy to do a source review at some point. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cheers. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
@AxonsArachnida: alright, I'm done... only a few points I got caught up on at the end. Feel free to respond to them, and don't feel pressured to start a source review. We can wait and see if someone else is willing to do it. Thanks again for the extensive review. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)
  • "The plant is the primary host for the larvae of the endemic New Zealand red admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)" This is a slight oversimplification. As I understand it, the mainland subspecies of V. gonerilla uses it as a host, but the chatham island subspecies doesn't, so it might be good to specify this.
ok
  • "The female butterflies lay their eggs" You can just say "The butterflies lay their eggs", no one is going to assume the males are laying eggs.
ok
  • "The female butterflies lay their eggs on the new growth of U. ferox leaves, which they are essentially immune to" Immune in what way? I was always under the impression that they're just small enough to not get jabbed by the trichomes.
removed
  • "Populations of V. gonerilla have decreased, possibly in part because of people treating U. ferox as a weed and removing it." I phrase it as "Populations of V. gonerilla have had a percieved decline" since evidence for the decline is pretty loose.
ok
  • "A rare moth species, Pseudocoremia flava, uses U. ferox as a host plant." The source doesn't explicitly label the species as rare. The title says "rare or little known", so it's unclear which P. flava fits into.
the source later calls P. flava "a rarely encountered species"
  • "Several other moth species" We haven't talked about any moth species yet, so you can just say "Several moth species".
fixed
added. i've actually seen them before but didn't know what they were
  • "Deer, sheep, and goats eat U. ferox's leaves despite of the trichomes. The fruits are also eaten by common brushtail possums." For our non-NZ readers, you should mention that these are exotic species.
it would be clumsy and WP:REFOVERKILL to add that deer, sheep, goats, and possums are all introduced animals to NZ, because that might require sourcing for each animal, in this case it would be four more citations.
  • I don't suppose there are any descriptions of what it is like to be stung? As someone who has been stung several times, I can say it is not an experience that is easily forgotten!. Here's a description I found: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5006.full
Do you have any ideas on how this content could be added into the article? I'm stuck on this point...
  • "Urtica ferox was first described by German naturalist Georg Forster in 1786." One thing I've had reviewers mention before is that it might be more accurate to say something like "It was first described using the modern system of nomenclature as...". This is just because Māori people were clearly aware of the species, so technically they'd be the first to describe it, which is clearly different from what you mean here.
I can add "scientifically described" as a substitute a lot of Australian Banksia pages just say "described", but I'll add "scientifically described" because it's more accurate and respectful to Maori
  • I suggest adding an image of a plant infected with Vittacus mansoni. There's heaps on iNaturalist for you to pick from.
added
  • Also why isn't Vittacus mansoni linked? Red links promote article creation.
added
  • "A 2011 revision of New Zealand flora suggests that the plant occurs as south as Stewart Island." I'm not sure if "revision" is the right word. That has a pretty specific meaning in botany. Also saying it "suggests" the plant is there makes it seem like it's not 100% confirmed? Is that the case in the book? A quick look on iNat confirms that there's plenty around Oban.
That's right. Connor (1977), and strangely Vennell (2019), list Otago as the species' southern limit. This is incorrect. The species is common in Fiordland, other parts of Southland, and Stewart Island. As you said, iNat records confirm it.
  • "The 2023 assessment of U. ferox in the New Zealand Threat Classification System was "Not Threatened"" You cite NZPCN here. I'd just cite NZTCS directly since it's all in their online database. You could also mention that this is the same threat status it's been given in previous assessment, just to passively show that this is a pretty stable classification.
added
  • Are there any treatments for managing stings?
I found this from Health NZ. but I won't add it as it's of dubious accuracy
  • You could mention how it is distinguished from other Urtica (or at least Urtica within New Zealand) if the description doesn’t fully cover this.
the current description is pretty good at doing that, comparing to Grosse-Veldmann, Conn & Weigend (2016) key to differentiating the native nz and aus species
  • There's a few papers looking at potential medical uses of the plant. See "A potential therapeutic for chronic pain from the New Zealand native stinging nettle urtica ferox (ongaonga)" for instance.
I don't have access to that document :(
added
  • "They are oppositely arranged". -> I know what you mean here, but a regular reader might not, I’d explain this further.
fixed I think
  • "Juvenile leaves can reach up to 15 cm (5.9 in) long". Just before this you say that the leaves reach 8-12cm in length. This implies that the juvenile leaves shrink, is this correct?
correct
  • Define "panicle"
ok
  • "There are six species native to New Zealand." It might be worth mentioning how many non-native species in NZ there are as of 2026.
I couldn't find any reliable sources which talk about that
  • "The specific epithet ferox means 'ferocious', 'savage', or 'wild'." For Urtica, you say that its Latin in origin, but don’t specify what language ferox comes from (presumably also Latin?).
yes it's from Latin, Vennell (2019) doesn't explicitly mention it though
  • Define “cognate”
added
  • "U. ferox can be semideciduous (losing some of its leaves) or entirely deciduous (losing all of its leaves) in some southern localities in winter". When you say southern localities, how far south do you mean? South Island? Southern end of South Island?
unclear
  • You describe the colour of the leaves, but the colour of nothing else. It would be worth including, especially for people with colour blindness.
  • Is there a reason why the Te Ara "Poisonous plants and fungi – Poisonous native plants" isn’t archived like the others?
added
  • If possible it would be good to have an image of one or both peptides you mention. Wikiproject Chemistry might be able to make a structural image or two for you if you ask and give them the details. It’s not 100% necessary but would be nice to have.
Clathrus_ruber#Biochemistry has something like that
  • I’m curious about the exact mechanics of how a trichome sting works. Is there anything describing it? Ie does it break off in skin?
injecting like a syringe
  • 'The plant has, however, killed cattle, dogs, and horses in the past." I think this information would fit better in your toxins section after or before human deaths?
the current part is fine in ecol
  • “ in the family Urticaceae.” perhaps “in the nettle family Urticaceae”?
ok
  • Define “achenes”
ok
  • You could mention that seeds of this species are available for purchase. I think there’s been some efforts to plant these for butterflies in some places.
  • Define “seed bank”
ok
the latter is probably correct
  • Presumably the type specimen was collected during Cook’s second voyage?
possibly, can't find a reliable souce though
When translated, the preface of Florulae Insularum Australium refers to the specimens in the book being from the voyage.
What page is it on?
  • "The toxins in the trichomes contain the neurotransmitters histamine, serotonin and acetylcholine." What’s the significance of this?
knowing what toxins are in the stinging hairs is of huge encyclopedic value
I suppose what I'm trying to ask is what do they actually do? Toxins/venoms like this are often made up of a bunch of different chemicals which perform a variety of roles. I had a look at the source paper and it is frustratingly unclear, so lets just leave it.
Vennell (2019) gives a clearer description "[...] This injects a potent cocktail of compounds - histamine, serotonin and acetylcholine, which enter into the bloodstream and manipulate the nervous system"
  • It might be a good idea to make a distribution map of the species, especially since there’s loads of data on its distribution available.
would be a nice touch, but there's no article which has a map like iNat
  • "Fruiting occurs from December to May, the fruits are found in achenes, each containing a single seed, which is 1.5 millimetres long, that takes about one month to germinate." This might flower better as two sentences instead of one with loads of commas.
ok
  • The second paragraph of the description talks mostly about life history stuff. It seems like it could be a section on its own, with anything that describes the actual structures of the plant being merged with the rest of the "Description" section.
ok
  • "The egg laying begins in early spring (September)." You could also mention when it ends.
I think the content about the butterfly is already substantial as it is
  • "Several other moth species feed on the plant," - > "Several moth species feed on the plant as larvae"
fixed
  • The lede seems slightly thin. I'd mention its habitat and that it can kill dogs/horses
added
  • The alt text for the main image (which just says "refer to caption") isn't helpful. It needs to actually describe it, so a visually impaired person could get a rough mental image of it. I'd say something like " A small plant with green leaves. Each leaf has a row of white, sharp looking spines (trichomes) running up the middle of it. The leaves also have jagged edges." I see this problem with the rest of the alt text too.
revised
I added it with a different source

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI