Talk:Urtica ferox/GA1

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.

Wikilinks

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? ...

Criterion	Met?	Comments
1a (well-written)	On hold	Several prose issues noted above need fixing: grammar errors, typos, unclear sentences.
1b (verifiable, no original research)	On hold	The "subjectively" query and the 1 m / ovulate-triangulate issues need source verification.
2a (lead)	Yes	Lead summarises the article adequately, though the near-duplication with the Uses section opening is worth addressing.
2b (structure)	Yes	Logical section structure appropriate for a species article.
2c (consistent citations)	Yes	Harvard referencing used consistently throughout.
3 (images)	Yes	Freely licensed images with relevant captions and alt text.
4 (length/focus)	Yes	Appropriately focused; no major digressions.
5 (stable)	Yes	No edit warring evident.
6 (neutral)	Yes	Subject 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)