# Talk:Andrew Planta

@Kusma, Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron,  and SL93:, I don't think nor is correct in alt2, see wikt:nor. I suggest using neither ... nor or never ... or, e.g. 

ALT2: ... that despite published scholarship to the contrary, Andrew Planta neither received a doctorate nor taught mathematics at Erlangen? TSventon (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: I'd point you to WP:ERRORS. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, the nomination is in prep, so I have now changed it myself. I wanted to inform the editors involved first, especially you as hook writer. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon, whoop! That's my bad, I thought I saw it in the next queue, not the next prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andrew Planta/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

 
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Earwig shows no issues; images are appropriately licensed.  Sources are reliable; there are a couple of very old books among the sources but they seem fine for what they're used for.

"The Planta family [de; it] was at his time one of the most important families of the Engadin area."  Presumably should be "at this time"?
I think both are correct, but yours is easier to read.
"but the second edition of 1785 and the Ladin edition of 1770 both credit Planta": not necessarily a problem for this article, if this is how the sources describe the editions, but it seems odd that the Ladin edition is not regarded as the second edition, as it's the earlier of the two.  Perhaps "second Italian edition"?
Yes, that is clearer.
"Die Ordnung GOttes in der Gemeine."  I assume that's a typo for "Gottes"?
Amazingly, not a typo. To write "GOtt" with two initial capitals is common in 16th to 18th century Protestant Germany; it is similar to "HErr" for "Lord"; Luther used various stylings of "Herr", "HErr" and "HERR" to distinguish between Greek Kyrios, YHVH and "Adonai", compare [3].
"In 1758, he obtained the post of assistant librarian at the British Museum;[2][3] more precisely, he was Assistant Keeper of Natural History from 1758–1765 and Assistant Keeper of Printed Books 1765–1773.[25]"  Do we need the imprecise first clause, then?
Made slightly less redundant-looking.
"In 1762, she married Christian Minnick or Minnicks,[32][35] who emigrated to Pennsylvania."   Assuming we know for sure she emigrated with her husband, suggest making this "and they emigrated to Pennsylvania" or something similar.
Done; We know reasonably well that she emigrated to the US but I don't know whether he might have already emigrated earlier (he is an interesting character, I am sure he is mentioned in this letter to Benjamin Franklin [4] and from various less RS [5] [6] he was also Swiss and may have had a second family in South Carolina...)
Spotchecks (footnote numbers refer to this version:

FN 3 cites "He likely also taught mathematics at the Gymnasium Carolinum."  Verified, but I see this source also says he was professor of mathematics in Erlangen, which is dismissed earlier in the paragraph, implying this source is not as reliable as it could be.  Or is the Erlangen claim only recently debunked, perhaps since this source was written?
I think what happened here is that "professor" should be read as "teacher at the gymnasium" and was misunderstood as "professor at the University" for a long time, and you have many sources copying nonsense from each other. The claim was debunked in Hartmann 1951, more or less the first source that does proper historical research and looks at the source material.
Added another citation to my more reliable Hartmann 1951 after checking that his "Collegium illustre in Ansbach" is indeed the Gymnasium Carolinum.
FN 27 cites "In his Natural History role at the museum, Planta was succeeded by Daniel Solander and in Printed Books by his son Joseph Planta." Verified.
FN 29 cites "Planta himself was one of the proposers when Johann Reinhold Forster was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in February 1772."  I can't see the relevant snippet in Google Books; can you quote it here?
Will do later today (I own a paper copy but can't access it right now). Incidentally, my interest in the Plantas came about while I was researching Johann Reinhold Forster (hopefully coming to GAN and FAC later this year); somehow this turned into quite a few articles (the longest is my collaboration with SusunW: Eliza Stephens, the second youngest daughter).
OK, the snippet is "Barrington headed the list of Fellows who endorsed Forster's certificate of nomination for election to the Royal Society on 14 November 1771.125 Forster was elected FRS on 27 February 1772" with a footnote "125 Certificates, 1767-1778, Royal Society of London. The other signatories were J. Banks, D. Solander, S. Harper, M. Maty, A. Planta, M. Duane, C. Morton, M. Tunstall, H. Putman and E. King."
That's everything; all very minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! I'll go look at the book later and ping you when I can give you the full quote. —Kusma (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Quote added, let me know what you think Mike Christie! —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
All good; passing.  You might put a hidden comment in re "GOttes"; I wouldn't give it a snowball's chance in hell of surviving gnoming if you don't ... Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)