Talk:Johann Reinhold Forster

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Forsters in the South Sea

• ... that Johann Reinhold Forster, who together with his son George (both pictured) took part in the second voyage of James Cook, was described as "one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes"? Source: Beaglehole, John C. (1969) [1961]. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyages of Discovery. Vol. II. Cambridge: Published for the Hakluyt Society at the University Press. p. xliii
  • ALT1: ... that Johann Reinhold Forster was the parson of a small parish south of Danzig before becoming the naturalist on the second voyage of James Cook? Source: See for example s:de:ADB:Forster, Reinhold or various places in Hoare's book
  • ALT2: ... that Johann Reinhold Forster was a Reformed pastor, a teacher at Warrington Academy, the naturalist on the second voyage of James Cook and a professor at the University of Halle? Source: See for example s:de:ADB:Forster, Reinhold or various places in Hoare's book
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Randy Huntington

5x expanded by Kusma (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 58 past nominations.

—Kusma (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

• I don't have access to the source, but I'm most interested in ALT0. Could you get a short passage from the book to help verify? It's not clear what was the mistake here, was it Forster's participation in the voyage, or the voyage itself? That January 11 expansion was one hell of an edit. The article is otherwise new enough. Earwig shows 51% for copyvio, but this appears to be excerpts from Forster's journal which is unambiguously public domain by now. I'll complete the rest of the review once you address the hook issue. Departure– (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Departure–, thank you for the review! Embarrassingly I actually misquoted this, fixed now. A more extensive quote is "But who is going to envy John Reinhold Forster? We have come to one of the awkward beings of the age, the patently conspicuous phenomenon of the voyage. Let us admit at once, where we can, the virtues of Forster, his learning, the width of his interests, his perceptiveness in some things, the fact that, sunk deep beneath the surface, there was said to be some geniality. Let us admit that the surface itself must have been, at first sight, sometimes impressive—or how else could he have taken in, temporarily, so many excellent persons? Let us concede, as a mitigating factor, that for ocean voyaging no man was ever by physical or mental constitution less fitted. Yet there is nothing that can make him other than one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes. From first to last on the voyage, and afterwards, he was an incubus." The "mistake" here in Beaglehole's eye is to hire Forster as the expedition's scientist. —Kusma (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
    • The Earwig 51% are with respect to this and just come from the fact that I and the author of that page both quote similar things from the same sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Kusma: Most of Earwig shows nothing I'd consider a copyvio. From there, everything looks sourced, QPQ done, but before we go, I'd advise changing the hook a bit for proper attribution etc. What do you think of the blurb...

  ...that John Beaglehole described the decision to bring Johann Reinhold Forster and his son Georg on the second voyage of James Cook as "one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes"?

  Attribution to a name and a more concise blurb would be excellent here. Let me know where you stand on the blurb I propose and we'll be ready to go. Great work! Departure– (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you! Perhaps it is better to change this to
  • ALT3: ... that John Beaglehole described the appointment of Johann Reinhold Forster (pictured with his son George) as naturalist on the second voyage of James Cook as "one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes"?
• Beaglehole actually liked Georg Forster (whether he's Georg or George is another debate also held on Talk:Georg Forster; usually he is "George" in the Cook-related literature but "Georg" in the literary/philosophical/French revolution related literature; he was German but actually baptised "George" after an English ancestor), so we should not extend the criticism to the son. Departure–, what do you think? —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Kusma: My only issue with that hook is length - it's right on 200 characters of prose so I'm unsure if it can be used. Are you alright shortening "second voyage of James Cook" to "James Cook's second voyage"? Departure– (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let's shave off a few characters.

• ALT3a: ... that John Beaglehole described the appointment of Johann Reinhold Forster (pictured with his son George) as naturalist on Cook's second voyage as "one of the Admiralty's vast mistakes"?

If this needs shortening further, "described ... as" could become "called". —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Not going to bother asking for the removal of "the" before Cook (unless we're calling explorer James Cook by the awesome cognomen The Cook, which would be a better nickname than anything I could come up with) as it's obviously not a controversial change, but that hook is otherwise good to go from here. Departure– (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Johann Reinhold Forster/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Kusma (talk · contribs) 15:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article and will have comments here soon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	On an excursion, Forster found a lake that was later named "Lake Forster - could be more detailed... I assume this was in Fiordland, because that is where Tamatea / Dusky Sound is. Maybe gloss Honoris causa if it means something like an "honorary degree" in common English.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	withdrawn himself from the voyage.". - remove period Queen Charlotte Sound → Queen Charlotte Sound / Tōtaranui - common name Dusky Sound → Tamatea / Dusky Sound - common name honor → honour - I prefer American English, though this article appears to be written mostly in British English and this spelling should be changed for consistency. "Plymouth" could be linked "Halle (Saale)" could also be linked University of Halle is linked numerous times and HMS Resolution is linked twice in the same section - dup wlinks
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Ref layout is satisfactory.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I have no issues with the reliabilty of the sources and there also appears to be no uncited paragraphs, so a thumbs up from me.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues, no uncited paragraphs, etc.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Spotcheck done by Earwig's detector is OK, only some common words or quotes got picked up... I will begin the manual spot check soon. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Perhaps mention the memorial of him in the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article is a good overview of his life and doesn't go off-topic. Passed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues of neutrality. Passed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable and free of edit wars. Passed.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Source URL of lede image is dead. Y Image of gymnasium is licensed properly. Y Image of church is licensed properly. Y Image of church is river properly. Y Image of Lake Elton is licensed properly. Y Source URL of Warrington image is dead. Y Image of Joseph Banks is licensed properly. Y Source URL for Thomas Pennant image is dead. Y Image by John Francis Rigaud is licensed properly. Y Image by engraving is licensed properly. Y Image of Forster's tomb is licensed properly. Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media is relevant. Pasesd.
	7. Overall assessment.	Looks good. Promoting to GA.

• Thank you for reviewing! I have updated the image URL for Pennant and removed the Warrington image as I can't verify it. I might add another one from [1] at some later time. Will get to the rest soonish. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No problem... I also think that's most of the general comments from me. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• 1a done a part but did not expand the Lake Forster episode; I think more detail would need to be spread more evenly over the voyage.
• 1b all done I think.
• 3a memorial plaque is now in the prose as well.
• 6a added archive URL for lede image.

@Alexeyevitch, thank you again! Is there anything else you would like for GA status or do you have any recommendations how to improve the article further? —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a great article of his life, as is; it's comprehensive, cites reliable sources, has media. There is a few things left to check and once done I'll be happy promote it to GA. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's great. If you have any additional ideas what to improve, please let me know. I am planning to go for FA status later; currently I think the sections needing most work to become comprehensive are those on taxa named by/after him, works and legacy/reception/honours. —Kusma (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what should and shouldn't get expanded, though any improvements to the article will help it towards that goal. I haven't worked on any FAs yet but I'm aware image licensing and organization may be good to verify or check beforehand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 20:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I should be done with finalizing the review today or tomorrow. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Genera named or not named after Forster

• Forstera: yes. Linnaeus/Sparrman/G. Forster.
• Forsteronia: no [2] named after Thomas Furly Forster but Hoare thinks it is.
• Forsteropsis: no longer separate genus, perhaps do not mention.
• Forsterygion: very likely; best source?
• Forsteriola, Forsteropsalis, Forsterella: named after some 20th century scientist?

—Kusma (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)