# Talk:Characteres generum plantarum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Characteres generum plantarum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 08:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I should get to this soon. Incidentally, if you're keen could you review Dacrycarpus dacrydioides? Dracophyllum 08:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
1) Prose

Link draughtsman
I've linked to drawing, although botanical illustration could be considered
hired as an assistant | might be better
Done.
first scientific publication to come out. | Come out of the voyage or of all time?
Well, the voyage. Reworded.
Forster's own expense | If this is the main Forster then it's fine but if it's the family then it should be Forsters'
Removed "the". I checked the source and it is the elder Forser
The two 1775 folios are the one | is the one or are the ones
I am trying to write "The two are ... one ... and ... one ...". Tried to clarify, is this still not working?
one originally belonging to Anna Blackburne (which was offered for sale in 1944) are unknown | ones...are or one...is
the subject here is "the whereabouts".
£1 7s | I would write out shillings here
I would feel compelled to also write out the pounds then.
what ever, | could be changed to "what[so]ever" because this meaning of "whatever" is archaic
Done.
Also, later botanists | dont rly need "also, later"
Replaced by "the".
Expand lede a bit more to include all sections

Did a bit.
3) Good coverage and focus
4) Is Neutral
5) Is stable
6) Illustrated with appropriate licences and captions, though the painting's caption is debatably too long.

When I first found this image in other articles, the caption was "Reinhold and Georg Forster in Tahiti", but perhaps I don't need to explain why that name is of questionable accuracy every single time I use it.
2) Just sources to go, otherwise looks good Dracophyllum 08:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
a) reflist is good and style is consistent
b) all sources are reliable
c) Spot checking:

It also contains an apology for containing only 75 genera | Text says: "Then too it is necessary to realise that although we were away for three years. not for all that. time however. nor even for the greater part of it. were we on land " + a pretty lengthy set of excuses Checks out
The earlier observations by Banks and Solander from the first voyage of James Cook were only published much later. | "[Later book] was published early in 1777, six weeks before Cook's official account" Checks out
The first folio edition was presented to King George III in November 1775, probably on 17 November; this also effectively made it impossible for Sandwich to withdraw the permission for publication. | "present a copy to King George III ‘next Friday’, probably 17 November (Forster 1978: 542). Amid the quarrels Forster was having with Cook and Sandwich, presenting a copy to the King would amount to a fait accompli, although not outright publication  Checks out
Spot checks clean no OR or plagiarism. 
d) Earwig is clean
@Kusma: Done. Just fix a few prose issues, expand the lede and maybe cut down one caption and we should be good. Dracophyllum 08:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I think I have implemented your suggestions. What I have not covered in depth is a controversy among taxonomists whether the book was "validly" published in 1775 or 1776, as that has some importance for some other naming disputes. (Earp 2013 is a response to St John 1971 about this). My current plan is not to go deeper into this unless I decide to actually include details of all the species in the book and their naming history, which is an extensive and complicated topic (and might need a botanist, not just an amateur like me, even if I have the Nicolson/Fosberg book). @Dracophyllum: Let me know what you think of my changes (and especially of the non-changes)! —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Passing Dracophyllum 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)