Jump to content

Talk:Sissinghurst Castle Garden/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Untitled

Boldly but thoughtlessly redirected from its correctly-named site, Sissinghurst Castle. A little research would have prevented this blunder. --Wetman 12:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sissinghurst Castle is a garden, to be sure. It may be known simply as Sissinghurst but never as Sissinghurst Castle Garden any more than Sissinghurst Castle Garden Centre. Why are we operating in a vacuum at Wikipedia? There's the whole Internet to show the way. This is as hard to explain as "Palace of Versailles".
Well, now I see the National Trust calls its peoperty "Sissinghurst Castle Garden," so I better just sit down and shut up. No doubt disappointed visitors who never heard of Vita Sackville-West were looking for the "castle" eh... --Wetman 23:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Support --Francis Schonken 10:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weakly Oppose - the article as it stands is about the garden. I can see that a separate article on Sissinghurst is warranted as per Francis Schonken's comments. Suggest that article is started, replacing the current redirection, and then review whether merger is appropriate.--A Y Arktos 10:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Any discussion of the poorly-documented Sissinghurst Castle itself is of encyclopedic interest only in relation to the remnants of it in the present garden, and should be here, in a subsection. --Wetman 11:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Sissinghurst Castle Garden is the name of the National Trust property; if it is deemed that Sissinghurst or Sissinghurst Garden deserve treatment as full-fledged articles, then separate articles should be created, but this one should not be renamed. — Grstain 13:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per above, and also from what I've read in this article, it is about the garden not the castle or place. Marco79 17:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Result

Page not moved. Eugene van der Pijll 20:56, 22 December 2005 (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.

Images

This for example is quite characteristic

You may want to read the discussion about images at Talk:Charles Marion Russell. This, about your remark, is an encyclopedia not a magazine. Greetings, Hafspajen (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Moderation in all things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I love this garden exactly because it is so exhuberant, lavish, extravagant, and voluptuous and I think this should be reflected somehow.Hafspajen (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Good for you. I've put back your beloved Wisteria, in place of another image which was quite similar to the article's lead image. See what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
2
1

Well, I miss for example pictures from that magnificent rose garden. Don't you have possibility to take some pics on that+ And I am not so sure if picture 1 isn't better than nr 2. Shows the garden sections clearer.Hafspajen (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, try swapping it out then, I'm not fanatical, but do try to avoid having 2 similar images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Take of my hat for your diplomacy. Hafspajen (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sissinghurst Castle Garden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible FAC

I'm planning to expand this article, with a view to FAC. It has an interesting mix of horticultural, historical and architectural aspects, and there's an abundance of source material - much of which I have. Sadly, I'm no gardener, and I think the article would benefit greatly from the input of an editor who knows about plants/horticulture. I've some experience of working collaboratively on FAC articles and I would be really interested in working with an editor with a horticultural focus. I think there's a fairly simple split between the history/architecture and the garden that would lend itself to a collaborative approach. If the idea appeals, just drop me a note, here, on my Talkpage, or on the Horticulture Project Talkpage, where I've copied this message. KJP1 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I saw your note at the WikiProject, and I've added this page to my watchlist. Please let me know here about any specific tasks where I might be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
That's really very much appreciated. I'm doing the bones at the moment and will then do the history. But all of that's really just a prelude to the garden and when I get there, I shall certainly be calling. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I think I should let you know that in a few weeks I'll be going to another place where I sometimes live, where I have several very good and out-of-print books on garden history that I think will be useful here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish - Excellent - as I said, there's no hurry at all and I'm sure it does need some further horticultural input. Whatever time is needed. I think I've sourced a map/plan and that will also need some time. KJP1 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish - And, as you can see on my Takpage, a gorgeous map is now with us. As much time as is needed. KJP1 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

To do

  • Alt. text
  • Sarah Raven's book
  • Review/resize images
  • Plan much needed - possible sources. Now in hand. And now done, wonderfully.
  • Check citing of PDFs
  • Check citation consistency for online sources
  • Check on plant names/technical terms - in hand
  • Improve the lead
  • Needs a better conclusion? Appreciation? Or, better still, a worked up section on individual plants -see below. Now done - exactly what was needed.
  • Quotes - use "her one magnificent act of creation" (VG p=302). Find "we made a garden where there was none and did our best".
  • Expand/better ref. the section on the Trust's reluctance.
  • Move Hidcote/Jenkins to gardening section and expand/better ref. for Harold designs/Vita plants. Perhaps not.
  • Get other Brown and use/move from Further reading.
  • Cite 150 (currently), "delphinium" quote has no page no., but the link gives the snippet. On its way. Inset p. no. Ditto Horwood, currently 142.
  • All of the page ranges in the References section need to use n-dashes, not hyphens, eg: "pp. 4–5", not "pp. 4-5".
Shall get on to that, rather dull, task! KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, should have asked. Do you want this –, rather than the stubby hyphen? Sorry, even with nowiki, I can't show you what I mean but you'll see it in the edited version. KJP1 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I found some more (look at it this way, it's a huge pain but it adds to our edit counts ). It's all good now, no need for the HTML here. I only did it that way for the year ranges because they show it that way at MOS. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Bending some stubborn acres to my will" and
"Hear first of the country that shall claim my theme,
The Weald of Kent, once forest, and to-day
Meadow and orchard, garden of fruit and hops,
A green, wet country on a bed of clay,"
from The Land. Too good not to use? KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish - Oddly, I didn't see these. I must have overlooked the Watchlist notification. I think they're fine. I agree with 1 and 4, as I think the Baker material, interesting though it is, won't meet RS. I'll get a Lord cite for 2. I know he discusses the amateur/professional debate. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Vita and Harold

What a super article! With a few edits this could be good for FA. I don't think we should be referring to Vita and Harold by their first names though. --MarchOrDie (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

MarchOrDie - The material certainly lends itself to an FAC and I'm hopeful that will be achieved. Re. Vita and Harold, I did think long and hard before going down this route and you're right in that it's not conventional. But I know of at least one FA where the consensus ended up with the first name usage, after discussion, and I think there are some good reasons for doing so here.
  • They are pretty well known as Harold and Vita;
  • The constant repetition of Sackville-West and Nicolson could become laborious;
  • The use of Nicolson would require constant clarification. Many of Harold and Vita's descendants, and their wives etc., have made quite a living from writing about many aspects of H&V's lives, including Sissinghurst, and to have to repeatedly spell out which Nicolson said/did what could also be rather repetitive.
That said, I'm not wedded to it, but intend to run it this way at PR/FAC and see what the consensus is. KJP1 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks great yup. Easily GA quality.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
SchroCat, MarchOrDie - Schrocat, I'm working this up for a planned FAC, via PR, and I'd much appreciate your thoughts on the point March or Die raises re. my use of Vita/Harold as opposed to Sackville-West/Nicolson. I clearly remember an FAC of yours where this very issue was raised but I can't remember which one. I do get MoD's point and think it quite/very likely others will agree. Although I prefer V&H, for the reasons outlined above and thought about it quite a lot before opting for it, I'm not wedded to it. So just say it as you see it - I'd genuinely appreciate the advice.
p.s. - I'll get to Shergar just as soon as I'm back in the country. KJP1 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm flexible on the point but, as you'll have seen elsewhere, there is often a chance that having it as such invites a disruptive bunfight later down the line. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
H&V agreed. Intrusive clarification the reason.SovalValtos (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Plan

An inadequate note of thanks to Hchc2009 for the superb plan. It's a really valuable addition and will be of great assistance to readers. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Should the plan have a date to show what snapshot it represents?SovalValtos (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It'd also be useful if it showed a scale and orientation (i.e which way is north?). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree those things are needed. Unless a new map is to be created, I've added the direction and the total area to the caption for the map. I could not find a reliable source for a scale, but I did find acreage information, that I also added to the text, and which I think is useful information in itself. I don't know the date, but it seems to basically represent the present day. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Might the moat be labelled? It might be thought PBO though!SovalValtos (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
All very sound suggestions, but I'm afraid I'm limited in what can be done with the map. It was drawn by an editor who's unfortunately no longer active. We can certainly amend the key, as Tryptofish has helpfully done but labelling the moat, for example, would need the image itself to be altered. I could ask about that but he is retired and has already done me a huge favour by creating it. KJP1 (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it's reasonably obvious where the water is, so I think labeling it isn't really necessary. If someone raises an issue about it in a review, there is a noticeboard somewhere (I can find it if needed) where one can request artistically inclined editors to revise images. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
When something is so good it is easy to get carried away and try to gild the lily (or should that be blanco the the white garden) and make something perfectly good for FA into FA+. I actually got round to downloading the Inkscape software but soon realized a little learning is a dangerous thing. Adding a date to clarify it is pre any possible NT pond mods might still be worthwhile.SovalValtos (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
SovalValtos - really glad you like it. I think it has come along very nicely. And a good example of what can be achieved on here by collaboration, so thank you very much indeed for your inputs. I think it will make a good FAC for 2019. KJP1 (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The White Garden

I'm struggling, here and on Geograph, to find a shot of the White Garden looking really white. Any editors with such an image that they could upload? KJP1 (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to pander to unsubtle expectations, reality and imagination suffice.SovalValtos (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Point taken, although I have seen some absolutely gorgeous photos of the central rose in full flower. But all copyright, unfortunately. KJP1 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a question of when the photo was taken relative to when the plants were in bloom, but it's perfectly acceptable to show some out-of-bloom plants in green. Another option might be to add one or more close-ups of specific flowers that are known to be in the garden. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
I might be able to take a photo in the snow next month....SovalValtos (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The subject of the section being the white garden the inclusion of close-ups of individual flowers might be better given via a commons link to a sub section.SovalValtos (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sarah Raven tells me that the R.Mulliganii flowers only for a grand total of about three weeks, around the beginning of July. So perhaps you're right. We could certainly do a Commons Gallery if Tryptofish thinks it's warranted. Commons and Geograph both have pretty good selections. But I'm not knowledgeable enough to know which are the most "significant" ones. KJP1 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
p.s. that said, this, [5] and this [6] are rather beautiful.

Plants

I'm actually quite content with the existing image, as it is. Some editors dislike galleries, although I don't mind them at all. Instead, it might be useful to have some more flower close-ups in the Plants section at the bottom of the page. Over the next several days, I will see if I can expand that section, maybe from a list into regular text. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, some close-ups of the Sissinghurst plants would be very nice. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The more you can tell me about variety names (ie, which cultivar of dahlias? of red-hot pokers? and on and on), the more I can do with it. Of course, that depends on the sources you have saying that this specific variety is the one they planted there (if not, no worries). Also, do the sources say anything about a gardener or groundskeeper at Sissinghurst who came up with the specific varieties, either by hybridizing them there or by making a selection from a wild population? Someone had to have done that for anything that was first grown there, and it would be good if I could write something about that. By the way, I'm now at my "other" home and I've found some good sources, including a mid 20th century book by Graham Stuart Thomas with an introduction by Vita herself, that goes into the ancestries of some of the rose varieties. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
But I know nothing of plants! One dahlia is as much as another to me, and that's not much. But....I've got (almost) all of the sources. Many, including Scott-James, Raven and Lloyd, have lengthy indexes on the plants alone. For example, Raven has 15 separate entries for crocuses, and a page and a half for roses! If you can say what you want me to look up, that I can do. The additional sources sound excellent. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

One other suggestion. The second of the External links is to the blog maintained by Sissinghurst's gardeners. There's a mass of detail on matters horticultural there which may help. KJP1 (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll look at that EL blog. As for the lengthy indexes, I'd say that it would obviously be unnecessary to go into every crocus and every rose that gets a mention. So I would focus only on those where the source does more than just list the plant variety, and pay attention to those where the source makes some sort of commentary specifically about that variety. So if it's just part of a list of everything that was planted there, we can ignore it. But if a source says that Crocus 'Joe Schmo' played an important role in the design of the purple border (or something like that), I'd like to know that, and I could probably research something about how the Garden did something noteworthy about it. Given the possibly bottomless well of this stuff, I'm tentatively figuring on making two sub-sections, with one about roses, because I keep seeing mentions of how important the roses were, and one that expands the list of various plants that originated at Sissinghurst. (But I could also add something more if a source says "this plant was used in an important or unique way at Sissinghurst".) So just go according to that, and I basically just need a list of names – and you can leave it to me to figure out whether to make the list shorter if it's too long, and there's likewise no need to worry if we leave a few out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think a section on the plants, or indeed two, on the plants and the roses specifically, would be an excellent conclusion to the article. I think it's a little weak at present, and there couldn't be a better end to what really should be a garden article. Certainly, having read all the sources, the prevailing view is that it is the roses, above all else including the concepts of garden "rooms", and single-palette gardens even including the White, which make Sissinghurst so important. Tony Lloyd describes roses as "central to Sissinghurst's style" and the planting of the Rose Garden as "most typical" of Vita's style. Of particular importance seems to be her use of "old roses", although Lloyd also mentions the "Hybrid Musks" and "Hybrid Teas and Floribunda". KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
One other thing: I've found a passing mention (just a mention, no explanatory text) of a Penstemon 'Sissinghurst Pink'. The page now says a white variety, but not a pink one, originated there. If you see anything that says that the pink originated there, that would be good for me to know. (It might not have, could just be a later variety that was named in honor of the garden.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the pink is covered, as the third in the list? Lloyd does make specific reference to it, but not perhaps in a good way!: "Penstemon 'Sissinghurst Pink', so called because the garden's stock of 'Evelyn' seemed to be superior, is not distinct from that variety and does not merit a separate name". KJP1 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My bad, I got Penstemon mixed up with Pulmonaria. But this way I now do know that it came from a particular species by way of 'Evelyn'. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Revisiting Lloyd Lord, he mentions the following additional plants as particularly relevant:

  • Iris 'Sissinghurst' - a dwarf bearded cultivar;
  • Phlox 'Violet Vere' - named after Pamela Schwerdt's mother;
  • Thalictrum aquilegiifolium 'White Cloud' - raised from seed and considered much superior to the original;
  • Verbena 'Sissinghurst'

These all post-date V&H, being from the 70's/80's, so the section intro will need re-writing/blowing up and starting again! KJP1 (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That's very helpful, thanks. I don't see (am missing?) a source on the page that is written by "Lloyd". Could you point me to it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You're missing nothing, except that I've carelessly taken to calling Tony Lord Tony Lloyd! KJP1 (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, now I feel a little better about my own mistake with Penstemon. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Roses

Have now had a close look at what Raven, herself a gardener, has to say about the roses. These are the ones she lists as most important:

Have tried to add what seem to me the most suitable links. This may also be useful, [7]. But, as Vass noted, there are some 200 varieties in all so you'll need to be selective! KJP1 (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! That's exactly what I need, and now I have my homework to do. I think this will work out quite well. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Give me a shout if you want me to look up anything specific in the sources. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Also, I just ordered a copy of the Tony Lord book to have for myself, and it should be in my hands in a few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I just received the Lord book, and it will be very helpful to me in identifying which plants are most worth commenting on in this page. What lovely stuff: now I want to visit there! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
It's over twenty years since I visited but I still recall the impression the garden made. It is a beautiful place, and Lord's is a gorgeous book. I'm delighted you're enjoying it. I've ordered the Eddie Sackville-West and the Tinniswood (or do I mean Horwood? Check.) so that will get us over the missing page numbers problem. I'd agree that it's coming together rather well. KJP1 (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been reading and researching, and am very close to starting to write it. Where Raven says that Madame Alfred Carrière was the first rose planted there, does she give the date when it was planted? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
She does indeed - 1930. "This was the first rose planted by Vita at Sissinghurst in 1930 before the deeds were even signed, and it quickly covered most of the south face of the South Cottage." (Raven|2014|p=102) KJP1 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Coming along very nicely! KJP1 (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
And gorgeous images! KJP1 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm glad, thanks! And thanks as well to PaleCloudedWhite, because I seem to be quite inept at getting the British spellings the way that they should be. KJP1, please check on the page numbers for where I cited Raven. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Image caption

The caption of one of the images is "The statuary at Sissinghurst was not always of the highest quality." This is an opinion that should be attributed to a source. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a direct quote, so I've put a note in, supported by two sources. Will this do? KJP1 (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that helps a lot. The one additional issue I can think of is whether the sources can substantiate that the specific sculpture shown in the image is one of the lower quality ones, rather than a good one. We need to establish that there is no WP:OR in characterizing that particular photograph in that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I think we're good here. A complication is that there appear to be two statues of Dionysus, the one at the end of the moat which forms the conclusion of the axis from the Tower, and the one in the Nuttery. This image is of the former, which Scott-James describes as "particularly depressed". The one in the Nuttery I've seen called "dismal" and can find that if needed. Either way, they're both not top-drawer. KJP1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Because reviewers won't know that unless we say it, I strongly recommend adding something to the note in the caption, along the lines of "Statues of Dionysus such as this one were described by Scott-James as "particularly depressed" and by X as "dismal"." --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, a prompt reply from the NT today clarifies a point. There aren't two statues of Dionysus; their 2008 guide, which calls the one in the Nuttery Dionysus, is in error as it actually represents Bacchus. But either way, the caption's expanded to include Scott-James's comment. KJP1 (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Good. Which of those two is the one in the photo? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Dionysus - I'll try to clarify in the caption.
Yes, that covers it very well, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Informality

p.s. - Re. the "informality" of the section headings - and I'm perfectly fine with the change, by the way - what do you think about Vita and Harold in the body of the text? You'll see it's discussed above. Although I prefer V&H, and have seen an FA pass in this style, I appreciate others may very well see it as unencyclopedic. We could change it, or let it run this way at Peer review and see if there's a consensus for change? KJP1 (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It's very subjective indeed. I agree with you that we should avoid making the text a heavy slog with repetitious last names. And if we go with last names only, that won't work, because several people share the same last name. So I'm satisfied with just the header changes that I made, and leaving it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah good. So many of the Nicolsons have made their living out of writing about Sissinghurst, among other things, that I think it would just become extraordinarily clumsy to use surnames. KJP1 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It occurred to me that if a biographer says somewhere that it is appropriate or customary to write about them using their first names, it could be very useful to cite that and quote from it in a footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
A very good point. Let me see what I can find. Certainly, Scott-James, who wrote the first non-Nicolson history, calls them V&H throughout. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, that was useful! As Scott-James, so Brown, Raven and Glendinning. V&H all. I'll think about the wording of a footnote. Something along the lines discussed, that so many of the Nicolson/Sackville-West clans have written about them/Sissinghurst that distinguishing them would become very laborious if one used surnames throughout. p.s. You may well have not heard it - do you get Radio 4 on your shores? - but Sissinghurst got quite a long piece on the radio this morning. KJP1 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of getting Radio 4 in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation style

Tryptofish - For consistency, are you ok if I take the books, e.g Jeff Cox, cite them in Sources, and then sfn the references? I think a mix of styles will prove problematic at FAC. KJP1 (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I wasn't sure how to do it in light of some of the references being single-page citations of other sources, but I think it would be best to make all of the references "sfn". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Green tickY - Done.

Sunken garden

The EL of the gardeners' blog talks about a sunken garden (a garden below the "surface" level, in which either one has to step down or there is a pool of water). I think this may be different than the moats. It might be good to look into whether this merits some mention. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think this, the Lion Pond, was one of V&H's few failures from the 1930s. I'm pretty certain it doesn't exist now, but will check. KJP1 (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Although the Historic England listing suggests there might be some remnant: "Contained within the south-east corner of the Tower Lawn is a small sunken garden with moisture-loving plants, built as the Lion Pond in 1930 but drained to form the present garden in 1939 (Lord 1995)". It appears to be a corner of the Tower Lawn [8] but not marked on any of the maps. I think you're right and that it should go in, probably in the Tower Lawn section. KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And this [9] suggests the NT is thinking about re-instatement. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
And this [10], about 3/4 in, gives quite a good shot of it. KJP1 (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Have put a mention in, at the end of the Top Courtyard and Tower Lawn section. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish - See if your map reading is better than mine and make a call on whether we describe it as in the South-western corner of the Lawn (as per Lord) or the South-eastern corner (as per Historic England). Basically, you're on the Lower Lawn with your back to the White Garden, the Tower to your right, and facing the Rose Garden. The Sunk garden is ahead of you, to the right. Is that SW or SE? Having looked at four separate maps and Google Earth, I'm with Lord. These bloody unreliable secondary sources! KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This helps [11]. I think the Sunk Garden is the little green square to the bottom left of the Lower Courtyard. KJP1 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
After staring at it for a while, I think that it's definitely southwest in relation to the Lower Courtyard, although a case can also be made that it is southeast in relation to the Top Courtyard. The contradiction between sources may have resulted from which courtyard they are referring to as "Lawn". I see nothing wrong with saying that it is southwest of the Lower Courtyard, and sourcing that to Lord. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

How do we stand?

Tryptofish - Well, I think it's looking pretty good. The Plants section provides an excellent conclusion, and the images there are excellent. Are we about ready to take it to Peer review? KJP1 (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I'm not aware of any major issues that remain. I'd like at least a day or two to think about it and go through the entire page for copyedits. (One question I'm thinking about is that I quoted Vita as liking dark purplish roses, but did not give any examples.) Maybe let's plan on going to review shortly after the holiday. Does that sound good to you?. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I added some dark roses, not sure if it makes it too busy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Surely. I did wonder whether the holidays may give some editors time to comment at PR but quite happy to wait if you’d prefer. KJP1 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing a close copyedit of the entire page, which I think is needed before going to review, and I'm seeing that it will take a couple of days. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I've probably fussed over it enough by this point. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Valuable fussing. I wish there was more on other articles. Thanks.SovalValtos (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I could only have done it with the excellent material that you gave me to work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The National Trust: 1968–2018

Are there sources to make an addition for the commercial pressures that have lead the NT to changing grass to paving and planting changes to extend 'shillinges's' dates?SovalValtos (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

SovalValtos - Does Footnote aa meet the need? I can expand it if necessary. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a very useful addition – so much so that I moved it out of the footnote and into the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Vita and guests

I've noticed that in one section of the page, we describe how Vita wanted Sissinghurst to be a place where she would not be bothered by visitors (just her and the dogs, etc.), but in another section, we say how she enjoyed the "shillingses". I realize that the latter are not the same thing as someone coming to spend the night in a spare room, but it still comes across as somewhat contradictory. Is there anything in the source material that we could point out to clarify it? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Life is often contradictory. I doubt it can be clarified.SovalValtos (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough, so it goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Finis … for now

Valuable indeed. The very thorough copy edit will stand us in good stead later, and the plant/rose sections really do end it very well. I shall just go through the sources and get a reference to the replacement of the paths, picking up SovalValtos' point Done, I hope. I might also try a stub for Powys - Done. You're quite right - the link to his brother wasn't that helpful but it's all there currently is. As to the friendships/shillingses point, I see where you're coming from, but I don't find it that contradictory: increasingly shunning deep friendships/lovers (although she was having an affair with Alvide in the 50s), V nevertheless enjoyed the transitory contacts, on strictly gardening terms, which she had both with the visitors and in her large correspondence. I think the key is that both aspects are well attested, and well-referenced in the article. If they add up to a complex character, so be it.

Tryptofish: now, is the peer review to FAC path agreeable? I was advised a long time ago that GA isn't always necessary, and I don't think it is here. We'll need a joint nominating statement to launch the PR. Something like:
"Sissinghurst Castle Garden was the creation of Vita Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson. Begun in the 1930s, by the time of their deaths in the 1960s it had become one of the world's most famous gardens. With an important rose collection, set within a structure of "garden rooms", it receives nearly 200,000 visitors a year, and remains a significant influence on garden design. A joint peer review nomination from Tryptofish and myself, we are looking to take the article to FAC. Any and all suggestions for improvement will be most gratefully received. We want to record our thanks to H. Among a number of valuable inputs during the article's development, his plan was of particular assistance. KJP1."
Redraft/rewrite as required. And a note of thanks - your input has greatly improved the article and working with you has been an absolute pleasure. We'll need to agree an approach to responding to comments but that can wait till we're launched. KJP1 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
And it's been a truly great pleasure for me too. And a fascinating subject to learn about. Please feel free to go ahead whenever you feel ready, and I will pay close attention along the way. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
And we're off! Happy New Year! KJP1 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Image of Sir Richard's house

I checked the Commons page for the image of the "conjectural model" of Richard Baker's house, and it is described as a "photograph" that is the original work of the editor who uploaded it. I'm concerned that this may be an invalid file license, because there is no indication of the source of the drawing that the photograph portrays. I think the copyright belongs to whoever created the model, not the person who photographed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you're broadly right. It needs a licence for the photograph itself, and then a UK-Right of Panorama tag for the 3D-model that's been photographed (it is in a public place, being on display at Sissinghurst). Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
That being the case, I think it can be fixed by proper revision of the Commons page. Had the subject of the photo not been subject to Right of Panorama or the equivalent, then the file would have been eligible for deletion at Commons, in which case I would have wanted to delete it here as a copyright violation. But the Commons page needs to be fixed before this page goes to FAC. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks both. Image licensing's not my strong suit but I know someone … KJP1 (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Have asked Yann, an admin on Commons, who helped me out of a fix with a wrong-titled image of St Donat's Castle when it was on the front page! KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Yann's given it the UK-Right of Panorama tag and thinks it is good to go. KJP1 (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I checked the Commons page, and I agree that everything is now in order. (These licence things can indeed be quite complex: Right of Panorama can lead right to paranoia!) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Saxingherste, Saxinherst, Saxenhurst..take your pick

The trouble here is that, as NN, says, "the spelling of the name fluctuates at the will of the scribe". NN uses all three spellings in the space of five lines. What AN says, rather interestingly, is that "Saxingherste" 'probably' means the wood of the Saxons, Saxon and hurst, and is the origin of the name Sissinghurst. I sense a footnote coming on. But I absolutely agree we need consistency. KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

p.s. I'm afraid there's nothing more about the Combwell charter in any of the other sources. NN just says he is "mentioned casually in a charter of Cumbwell Priory". He uses a different spelling from Wiki as well. KJP1 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you meant this section for the article talk page, not here? I like the new footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Getty Images

Not suggesting that we can make use of it, even if we wanted to, but I came across this, [12] while looking for more detail on the model and it's gorgeous. KJP1 (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Anna Roy

Lordy, you have done a lot of work. It seems the team did great work together. The article is beautifully written and very thorough. I had a few thoughts to offer; no biggies, but things to consider, perhaps; in no particular order.

  • I had read that Long Barn was Vita's first major garden and there she did a lot of experimentation, taking deep lessons she applied at SGC. So it could be said that Long Barn was a major inspiration for SGC - and hence they have a strong connection.
Have tried to capture a little of the influence of Long Barn - end of the third para. of the Garden section. See what you both think. KJP1 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to a strong and clear dynamic between Vita and her husband, whereby she had all the money and the creative vision and he was a broke, minor diplomat. All the money for SCG came from her, as you mention, but the power/aristo differential was always present.
I agree with this except I don't think Vita had all the creative vision. He was a good writer - I suspect his works, particularly the diaries, are more read today than anything else either of them wrote. And he made a significant contribution to the design of Sissinghurst, although his contribution, as he acknowledged, was secondary to hers. But setting that debate aside - I'm not sure how we'd approach reflecting this in the article. Any suggestions very welcome. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Re vision, I just meant that she longed for a family pile (missing Knowle) and found Sissinghurt. She seemed to burn for it, while he made a great contribution. Not a big point, just seems to speak to their characters, inclination to romance and relationship. Anna (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Vita took up writing her Observer column because the couple were broke. As I have read, it was specifically this column that caught the public imagination and lead to miles of traffic jams on local roads. It might be good to give a scale of the garden's wild fame at its peak.
I'm struggling to find something that directly links the Observer articles to the garden's rising popularity. Do you have a source, perchance? KJP1 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Have found a little in Scott-James and put it in at the end of the Building a garden section. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I added these refs to the Observer mention in the Vita article. At least I think it was me. I can check them through later. It was only put in a few months ago, so they should still hold.Anna (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you have access to - Lord, Tony (2000). Gardening at Sissinghurst. Frances Lincoln & National Trust, to check?
  • I was struck by the garden design with "vertical axes". Lol. I suspect some readers might take the phrase the wrong way, though I love the medieval idea. ⚒
Not sure how else to phrase it so I fear some readers will just have to get the wrong end of the hatchet! KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Now mentioned in the Rose Garden. Tryptofish will check it over. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Re the National Trust, did the couple originally plan to leave a significant 'endowment' with the house? The article suggests so. I would be surprised.
No they did not as they couldn't afford it. Does "The Trust was cautious: it felt that an endowment beyond the Nicolsons' means would be required" explain it, or should it be clarified further? KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lastly, the article section "Adam Nicolson" is a slightly clunky para, that contrasts with the rest of the flowing prose. Two very long sentences with various subclauses, could be smoothed out.
Have had a go at making this flow. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope that's of help. You have researched the house and garden much more me so I'll leave consideration of the points with you. Most of the points are ref'd in Vita's article, I think. Congratulations and best wishes Anna (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a fabulous article. My intention is not in any way to spoke your wheel. Anna (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Anna Roy, Tryptofish - Anna, many thanks indeed. Some great suggestions! I think you're right re. the influence of Long Barn and I'll work out how to weave this in. I'll ask my collaborator, who's the one who actually knows about plants, to see whether Rosa ‘Souvenir du Docteur Jamain’ can get a mention, The quote's a cracker - just need to find where it comes from. I'll let you know how we get on with the other points, all very valid. You're quite right - it's been a great collaboration; much my favourite way to approach an FAC. And thanks for the barn star. You don't contribute at FAC? Absolutely understand, but so very glad you liked the article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I find GA and FACs can get all very political (small p) so I tend to stay out these days. It's lovely to see WP working collaboratively. As it should be. I got tired of the fighting culture. All best wishes. Anna (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The quote is here. Anna (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
And let me add how much I too am enjoying the collaboration! As for that rose, Tony Lord appears never to mention that variety, as it's not in the index. Graham Stuart Thomas mentions it twice, both times briefly. On p. 22, he has a single sentence about a trip to Sissinghurst in 1947, where he saw 'Sissinghurst Castle' (already covered on the page) and "the rare purple Hybrid Perpetual 'Souvenir du Docteur Jamain'". On p. 36, he has a list of hybrid perpetual roses, and includes that variety in the list. There is a blog (not a reliable source) that names the nursery where she found it and suggests that Graham Thomas identified the variety for Vita. That doesn't give me much to work with. The quote is a good one, so maybe we could do something with that? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The rose isn't a vital point, it's just often hailed as her favourite. The quote is sourced above. Anna (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm thinking it might be best to treat this as being about "collecting" plants, as opposed to about that particular rose variety. I don't think we should try to fit in another quote box. But in the Rose Garden section, we describe how she obtained roses from other rose growers. We could add a sentence about how she got this rose, and put the quote in a footnote. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think this might be the original source, as it is written by Vita herself: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Written by her, quoted by Raven, actually. And we already cite the book, so it's Raven 2014, p. 200. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Have tried placing in the Rose Garden, as suggested and put in a footnote. Does it work? Have I shown the name correctly? KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've made various revisions, and I'm very happy with all of the new material. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We probably don't need another source but Scott-James does mention it, although oddly doesn't appear to index it: "... she helped to return some lost roses to cultivation...Another was Souvenir du Docteur Jamain, that lovely but once rare red hybrid perpetual..."(pp=73-74) KJP1 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm adding that to the footnote text, to emphasize the return to cultivation. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I was also reflecting that SCG is a site of pilgrimage for lesbians internationally - a place of great significance given Vita's life, writing and garden creation. It will be even more so with the film set for UK release at some point this year. Adam Nicolson famously bemoaned "rivers of lesbians coming through that gate.” [14]. And yes, it is so. Anna (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a place of pilgrimage for lesbians as well as plant lovers, and those of both persuasions! We have referenced the LGBTQ history in the National Trust section. Do you think we need a little more? KJP1 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be good to add the "rivers" quote, to give this more prominence. But per the source, he wasn't really bemoaning, more like expressing it fondly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I added it. Please see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I personally took his comment to reflect his lack keenness on hoards arriving in the spring after a peaceful winter. As you mention, he wasn't that delighted by the public invasion in general. Anna (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
That was Adam's father, Nigel. I do feel, though, that "fondly" wasn't the mot juste, and I've revised it; still not sure that I have gotten it right. Would it be better to make the sentence a footnote? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I like "iconic". Anna (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have some tweaks to suggest. Would you prefer me to list them all here or to edit the article for your consideration? Anna (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

First, you absolutely haven't spoked our wheel! Quite the contrary - your suggestions have been hugely valuable and it's a pleasure working with you. For my part, go right ahead and make your tweaks in the main article. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I'll leave any reverts total at your discretion. I haven't been following your (fab) article development. No preciousness re changes from me. (It's snowing in London! Wooooo). Anna (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked "iconic", and I too would welcome you editing directly. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The soddenness of the estate seems to be a strong, perennial theme. When I was there in the summer, the guides explained much of the design and layout as crucial for drainage. Adam Nicholson says in Sissinghurst Castle Garden (2018, p4) that the estate consisted of "wringing wet ruins". He also notes that stayed there, though in my book, doesn't give a date. It adds to the places contemporary notability. Anna (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I have also noted that the pair had no horticultural training. This is still looked down upon to this day as an 'amateur' approach. Snotty, but a prejudice threaded through the literature. And notable for such a hugely influential garden, nationally and internationally. Anna (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Not to add to your article word count, but I note there is no mention of the Great Barn, in the buildings list. Kent Council suggest "it is a typical example of those used for the storage and threshing of grain. The roof structure is probably original, the brick and architectural style are typical of the C16. The similarity with the house, suggests it may be contemporary."Anna (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say these pieces could go into footnotes:
  • "The words on the plaque beneath, affixed to the arch of the Tower,[124] were chosen by Harold Nicolson: "Here lived V. Sackville-West who made this garden". Nigel Nicolson always felt that the memorial failed to acknowledge his father's contribution."
  • "His diary entry for 20 April 1933 records: 'My new wing has been done. The sitting room is lovely ... My bedroom, w.c. and bathroom are divine.'"
  • "there is nothing scrimpy or stingy about them. They have a generosity which is as desirable in plants as in people"
  • "I see we are going to have heaps of wall space for climbing things."
  • Called up to the RAF in 1941, he had urged that the hedges be maintained, confident that everything else in the garden could be restored after the war.
  • "Nicolson recorded her death in his diary: "Ursula[l] is with Vita. At about 1.5 she observes that Vita is breathing heavily, and then suddenly is silent. She dies without fear or self-reproach. I pick some of her favourite flowers and lay them on her bed""
  • "Girouard notes Horace Walpole's observation of 1752, "perfect and very beautiful"."
  • Formality is often essential to the plan of a garden but never to the arrangement of its flowers and shrubs. –William Robinson, author of The English Flower Garden and a major influence on Sackville-West's planting style[7] Anna (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I very much like the edits you made. I think the splitting of sentences and of paragraphs and the creation of some additional subsections are very good. I've tweaked a few things. Much of what you say here I'll leave for KJP1, but my initial reaction is to not want to move any of those into footnotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely echo the comments above re. your edits. Exceptionally helpful. On the footnotes, I'm with Tryptofish. I think some add to the narrative. More crucially, a very wise editor who helped me on my first FA once told me that nobody reads the footnotes. And we've already got many, many more than I've dared to put in any previous FAC. Thanks and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I love footnotes. They are often the best bit. But there you are. I find it easy to get caught up in the heady world of biogs and quote-lust. I used to put in lots, but have backed off as it's a bit too primary for me and not so encyclopedic in tone. I would suggest that if you are ever trying to reduce your word count / article size, that would be the place to start. But I'll leave it with you. Anna (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

How it has been used

What can be said about the intensions for its use, if any; use by the creators, and subsequent use? Some is in history, but perhaps not all that could be mentioned has.SovalValtos (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I just added an introduction to the Plants section, that speaks to that to some extent. Maybe KJP1 has some additional ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Revised lead -1st draft

Sissinghurst Castle Garden, at Sissinghurst in the Weald of Kent in England, was created by Vita Sackville-West, poet and writer, and her husband Harold Nicolson, author and diplomat. It is among the most famous gardens in England and is designated a Grade I listed structure. It was bought by Sackville-West in 1930, and over the next thirty years, working with, and later succeeded by, a series of notable head gardeners, she and Nicolson transformed a farmstead of "squalor and slovenly disorder"[1] into one of the world's most influential gardens. Following Sackville-West's death in 1962, the estate was gifted to the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty. It is one of the Trust's most popular properties, with nearly 200,000 visitors in 2017.

The gardens contain an internationally respected plant collection, particularly the assemblage of old garden roses. The writer Anne Scott-James considered the roses at Sissinghurst to be "one of the finest collections in the world".[2] A number of plants propagated in the gardens bear names related to people connected with Sissinghurst or the name of the garden itself. The garden design is based on axial walks that open onto enclosed gardens, termed "garden rooms", one of the earliest examples of this gardening style. Among the individual "garden rooms", the White Garden has been particularly influential, with the horticulturalist Tony Lord describing it as "the most ambitious ... of its time, the most entrancing of its type."[3]

The site of Sissinghurst is ancient and has been occupied since at least the Middle Ages. The present-day buildings began as a house built in the 1530s by Sir John Baker. In 1554 Sir John's daughter Cecily married Thomas Sackville, 1st Earl of Dorset, an ancestor of Vita Sackville-West. By the 18th century the Baker's fortunes had waned, and the house, renamed Sissinghurst Castle, was leased to the government to act as a prisoner-of-war camp during the Seven Years' War. The prisoners caused great damage and by the 19th century much of Sir Richard's house had been demolished. In the mid-19th century, the remaining buildings were in use as a workhouse, and by the 20th century Sissinghurst had declined to the status of a farmstead. In 1928 the castle was advertised for sale but remained unsold for two years.

Sackville-West was born in 1892 at Knole, the ancestral home of the Sackvilles. But for her sex, Sackville-West would have inherited Knole on the death of her father in 1928. Instead, following primogeniture, the house and the title passed to her cousin, a loss she felt deeply. In 1930, after she and Nicolson became concerned that their home Long Barn was threatened by development, Sackville-West bought Sissinghurst Castle. On purchasing Sissinghurst, Sackville-West and Nicolson inherited little more than some oak and nut trees, a quince, and a single old rose. Sackville-West planted the noisette rose 'Madame Alfred Carrière' on the south face of the South Cottage even before the deeds to the property had been signed. Nicolson was largely responsible for planning the garden design, while Sackville-West undertook the planting. Over the next thirty years, working with her head gardeners, she cultivated some two hundred varieties of roses and large numbers of other flowers and shrubs. Decades after Sackville-West and Nicolson created "a garden where none was",[4] Sissinghurst remains a major influence on horticultural thought and practice.

References

  1. ^ Jenkins 2003, p. 381.
  2. ^ Scott-James 1974, p. 73.
  3. ^ Lord 1995, p. 147.
  4. ^ Nicolson 2008, p. 285.
Tryptofish - draft 1. Para. 1 the Nicolsons, Para. 2 pre-the Nicolsons, Para. 3 the plants and garden design. Have at it. KJP1 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I'll probably need a day or so (have just been putting out multiple fires on other pages). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I've given it a pretty harsh go-over. I'd probably like to sleep on it before considering it finished. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Great - I prefer this, longer, version to the earlier pruned version, particularly bearing in mind Brian's criticism that the original failed fully to cover the article content. Yes, we'll need cites for direct quotes, but I can slot these in once we're ready to paste it in. Let me know, I'd quite like to get it in today if possible. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, much better than before. It's good to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Great - I'll stick the refs. in for the direct quotes, paste it in and let Brian and Harry know. I hate to tempt fate but I think it's going quite well. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
That went well! KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, everything looks very good indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review

Tryptofish - I've requested that, here, [15]. It's an FAC requirement. We should be ok, provided someone picks it up, as we're not first-time FAC nominators, the online sources are accessible (no paywalls etc.), and between us we've got all the offline sources. The only thing we might need to do is email some book scans if the Source reviewer wants to check a sample. In the event we get no takers, I'll lean on politely ask one of our Supporters. KJP1 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Tim's picked it up. On a related matter - we need to do a quick run through to see we've actioned all the actionable comments. I'm pretty sure we have - subject to Harry's further comments which we're waiting for - but it would be good to have two pairs of eyes on it. KJP1 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the Image Review is still open. As for what we can do now, I added a line a few days ago to the To do section above, so when you have a bit of time please check on that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@KJP1: While we are waiting, I want to make sure that you saw what I put at the bottom of the To do section above. It's fine if you see nothing there to be acted on, but I just want to make sure that we don't overlook anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Tryptofish - Yes, it has been a succession of quiet days at Sissinghurst, as Vita often said. I've pinged Nikki to check we're ok on the Images. I agree we probably could use the Baker material to cite the location of the model, but I don't think it's actually necessary. I'll drop a cite in for the second point on your latest To-Dos, and think they're fine otherwise. I know the coordinators like to give an full opportunity for reviewers to comment, but I think we've probably met that requirement now. Assuming Nikki's ok, I'll ping Ian R to see if he thinks there's anything left undone. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I've examined everything in your replies here and in the section above, and at the FAC, and I'm quite happy with everything. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Great that this will be a TFA. Well deserved. Anna (talk) 10:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Moat population

I think this could do with clarifying. "The two sides of the moat that remain from the medieval house are populated by goldfish, carp, and golden orfe" I do not have Lord to check what was intended. Might changing sides to arms help?SovalValtos (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

SovalValtos - Ah, I see what you mean - the confusion of 'sides' with 'banks'. I think 'arms' is an excellent suggestion. My collaborator's taking a wikibreak just now, so I'll make the change. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just popping in briefly to say that I think "arms" is good. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Page views

I figure it will be interesting to have this here for a few days. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sissinghurst_Castle_Garden/Archive_1&oldid=978415427"