Talk:The Botanic Garden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article The Botanic Garden has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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
Date Process Result
August 12, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 3, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 27, 2007.
Current status: Good article


This is a comprehensive article that is well-referenced, has a good lead that complies with WP:LEAD, has a good, strong amount of content, makes good use of several images, flows well, and has good prose and balance of text. Good job Awadewit. Symbol support vote.svg GA pass. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was researching this book for a paper and noticed on Google Books that they listed the publication date as 1825, whereas this article lists 1791 as the publication date. Was it reprinted by a different publisher in 1825? Is there a source elsewhere for it being published in 1791?--Xyzzyx0 (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No problems when checking against quick fail criteria, proceeding to substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • This article is mostly reasonably well written, but there is some hyperbolic language and weasel phraseology, e.g. staggering, delighted and intrigued, stunned, would seem to be. I would suggest that a thorough copy-edit is performed to render the prose in more encyclopaedic fashion. It is nearly there, but not quite. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I looked at the first set of examples, but they are not hyerbolic. In the case of "staggering", for example, the wording reflects the sources - would it be a good idea to add a comparison so readers can see just how much more Johnson was paying for this work than he paid for others? In the other cases, it is hard to see how this diction could be seen as hyperbolic; rather, in my opinion, they reflect a precise choice of words ("delighted and intrigued" is more specific than, for example, "interested"). I read through the entire article several times looking for this problem, but I don't see it. Could you provide some additional examples? The one instance of weasel wording pointed out here is not actually weasel wording. There is unecertainty about whether or not the "voice of the Poet" in the poem is really supposed to represent Darwin's or not - it is ambiguous. The language of the article accurately reflects that ambiguity. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • IF staggering, hefty, etc. are actually quotes from the references then they need to be presented as quotes, otherwise they are hyperbolic and unencyclopaedic. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    They are not quotes, but they reflect the sources' information. They are not hyperbolic when they reflect published information on the book. What did you think about my idea of a comparison that would help illuminate just how much Darwin was being paid? Awadewit (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Please read my explanation - it is not weasel wording. Note that there is ambiguity over who the "voice of the Poet" is - we cannot use the language of certainty where the sources state there is ambiguity. Awadewit (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, I will explain this one more time:
    Joseph Johnson, his publisher, eventually bought the copyright for The Botanic Garden from him for the staggering sum of ₤800. The use of the word staggering here relects an authorial point of view in the article which is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. Suggest you use a term such as the then large sum of...
    When Johnson published The Botanic Garden in 1791, he charged a hefty twenty-one shillings for it. Likewise, suggest the price was relatively expensive, at one guinea or twenty-one shillings.
    He was stunned at its success and therefore... Suggest something like he was surprised and pleased at its success....
    I accept your points on would seem to be and delighted and intrigued after re-examining the context. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm watching this discussion with interest. I agree with Awadewit that these terms are not weasel terms if they are indeed accurate. Occasionally events are groundbreaking and revolutionary, staggering and stunning and should be stated as such, particularly if they are described with similar superlative adjectives by reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    I accept your points and I feel that it would not be particularly useful to go to WP:GAR. I have also taken account of Moni3's comments on this.
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • The article is well referenced Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • and as far as I can tell references are to reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • The article is broad in its scope....
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • The article adheres to a NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • Images are tagged and have sufficient rationales, where non free. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images are suitably used and captioned. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. Overall:
    • Just some concerns over the prose. On hold whilst these are addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I've responded above about the prose. I've also removed the non-free image. It actually doesn't have a sufficient rationale (notice that it doesn't explain why we need a visual representation of the DVD cover in an article not about Cosmos). I've replaced it with a PD image of Sagan. I was an image noob when I added this. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, as explained above I accept your staemenst about the sources in good faith. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this page about Carl Sagan's Cosmos or about Erasmus Darwin's book?[edit]

I'd like to remove much of the material on this page that is about Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". The beauty of hyperlinks is that such material can be placed on its own page, but still accessible from here. Technology advances. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)