Talk:Flora Antarctica/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 19:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review the article. Do I get bonus points if I spot a connection with The Lord of the Rings? :)

Of course. The Southmarillion, sailed by Admiral "Benbow" Baggins and his chilly South Seas wife, Flora "Antarctica" Baggins. Not surprising they didn't have children ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments about the article

This article is a long way off from being promoted at GA, and imo there are too many issues that need addressing for the review process to continue further. I'll be giving it a quick fail, but with specific comments included, all of which would need to be addressed before the article is considered for re-nomination.

In general, the article seems as if it has not been checked through before being nominated. The lead section is not a stand-alone summary about the topic, but contains details not included elsewhere. The Context section needs more about Hooker and Fitch, and less on the voyage of the Erebus. There's little about what's in the books themselves, other than a number of illustrations in a stand-alone gallery, and a list of volumes. The importance relevance to modern academics of Hooker's works is hardly mentioned. I would expect reliable secondary sources to be used more than they have been, which could be used to answer many of the questions that come to mind when reading the article through. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

~~Thanks for the comments, I'll work on them.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the comments below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific points

Lead section

The lead contains information not mentioned in the main article.
- Fixed.
The lead needs to be expanded—or better still, rewritten—to say why more about why the book is notable, so “it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article”” This may be best done after the article’s main text is completed.
- Done.
Link Antarctic continent (Antarctica); botanical (botanical)
- Done.
Comma before or in The Flora Antarctica or (minor point)
- Done.
Date ranges should be full, e.g. amend 1843–45 to 1843{{ndash}}1845 (see MOS:DATERANGE)
- Done.
Amend 2 vols to ‘2 volumes’
- Done.
Darwin's theory – introduce/give full name/link Darwin
- Done.
Unlink Reeve Brothers, as it doesn’t link to the company
- Done.
The larger part of the plant specimens - ‘The greater part’?
- Done.
the Kew Herbarium - 'the Kew Herbarium in London'?
- Added, this really does seem redundant given the link, but hey.
I’m not sure all the caption in the infobox is needed
- It's clearly relevant.
The reference is for an non-controversial fact, and so is not required in the lead section
- Removed.
Replace England in the infobox (with 'United Kingdom')
- Done.
1843 – 1859 (in the infobox) – no spaces
- Done.

1 Context

The hatnote is incorrect, it should be 'Template:Further'—to show the section is covered in more detail elsewhere.
- Fixed.
The context mentions discusses the Ross expedition, but not the book’s author, Hooker, and there is a lot out there that discusses him and his preparations before the expedition, that would merit a subsection of its own (e.g. from https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/hms-erebus-and-hooker)
- Added.
I would replace the illustration (which does little to help understand the text in the section) with a map or with a portrait of Hooker/Fitch, or both.
- Image of Hooker added.
Little mention is made of Fitch and his work, or with his connections with Hooker and his famous father. Fitch, for instance is mentioned in the infobox and the lead section, but not in the article itself.
- Added.
Introduce James Clark Ross
- Glossed.
Link marine geography (Oceanography); latitude; Chatham; Tasmania; Sydney
- Linked.
Where is Christmas Harbour?
- Linked.
Several paragraphs appear to be uncited.
- Repeated ref for clarity.
Introduce and give the full name for Admiral D’Urville
- Done.
Other plants were also collected. This is vague to the point of being meaningless here.
- Removed.
Unlink Uranie (which needs italics).
- Italics yes; updated link.
Kew needs expansion/explanation, as many readers will be unaware of the significance of the place
- Done.

2 Reception

Nothing in detail about the Flora Antarctica before this section?
- Reordered.
Whilst it’s pleasing to note that Gray thought highly of the work (in 1849, before the volumes were all published), his praise needs to be placed in some sort of context—were the volumes generally well received when they appeared? Did they sell? Was Flora Antarctica ever reprinted? Is it still in print? What have any other (more modern) critics said?
- The work was reprinted in 1963, apparently the only time. It's now freely available online rather than in print. Sales figures are not readily available, but such a large work must have been destined only for research libraries; it's hard to see what the article could say about that. More modern views and historical context added.

3 Monograph

This section has uncited text.
- The source is the primary one, see last item in this section.
Any titles of books should be in italics.
- Fixed.
Is Frodin worth mentioning? He’s not notable enough to have his own link.
- Could be either way. Removed his name but it makes quoting awkward.
Amend J. D. Hooker to ‘Hooker’
- Done.
Link Ronald Campbell Gunn; William Archer (William Archer (naturalist))?
- Done.
the local naturalist - it perhaps needs to be clearer that local is referring to Tasmania
- Belt and braces it is.
3.2 Flora of Fuegia, the Falklands, Kerguellen's land, etc. is mainly cited using a primary source, something I would avoid doing if possible
- Noted, but the sections are directly descriptive of the subject of the article, so the primary source is the normal thing to use. (An article on a novel or play provides a synopsis of the plot, which comes directly from the primary source.)

5 References

Ref 2 ("The Erebus voyage”) is a dead link
- Archived.
Expand MUP
- Done, and linked.
Imo as secondary source would be preferable to Ref 7 (Darwin)
- Noted, but it supports the text correctly.
Ref 4 (Goyden et al) is a dead link
- Archived.
Ref 3 (Curtis) and Ref 10 (Walton) are underused.
What makes you think the thesis by Cave is reliable?
- Cave spent years on this thesis in the University of Tasmania, studying the Flora Tasmaniae, a topic which was clearly one in which his department was keenly interested and knowledgeable. The thesis made use of multiple primary sources: "correspondence, journals, plant specimens and collecting notes", making Cave one of the best-informed people in the world on the subject.

Other works to consider using (not required for GA)

Questions to consider answering more fully that at present

When did JH start to plan the book? (See https://www.jstor.org/stable/45066188)
- Well, the ships returned in 1843, and volumes started to appear that same year, so it seems he got on with it pretty promptly.
What are the books’ contents?
- Beyond the groups named, and the sample plates, the answer is "very long lists of plants, with descriptions and illustrations" – but that is clearly indicated by the current text with the statistics provided. We can't possibly go into details of each of those plants here, nor would it be appropriate; the lists belong in the subsidiary articles.
What is the style of the text?
- Overview and brief descriptions of the volumes added.
What approach to writing the book was taken by JDH (e.g. summary of the voyage as an introduction, followed by an introduction to the plants and geography of the lands explored)?
- Approach section added.
Had similar works ever been attempted before? (Ref 11 (Frodin) could be used here)
- Added.
Have the volumes ever been published outside Britain?
- In Germany in 1963.
How is each species described? What is the general nature of the illustrations?
- Explained in 'Approach'.
An quotation of the text for a species and its illustration might be useful
- Explained in 'Approach'.
The expedition ended in the early 1840s, the books were not all finally published until the late 1850s. Why did the works take this this long before they were first published?
- There's no answer to this, other than that it took a long time to compile a lengthy text and a very large number of hand-made plates.

Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Failing now, but...

...it's a great topic, and Hooker and his father are heroes of mine, so any articles associated with them are worth developing. Good luck! Amitchell125 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think another reviewer should address the next GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]