Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sissinghurst Castle Garden/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [1].

Sissinghurst Castle Garden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tryptofish, KJP1

Sissinghurst Castle Garden was created by Vita Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson. Begun in the 1930s, by the time of their deaths it had become one of the world's most famous gardens. Its landscaping approach, a series of "garden rooms" within a formal structure, was innovative and remains influential. Its plant collection, particularly of roses, is renowned. A joint nomination from Tryptofish and myself, we are grateful for the detailed peer review, and for Hchc2009's excellent plan of the garden. Any and all suggestions for improvement are most welcome. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I was one of the peer reviewers and made my few comments at that stage. The only points I can see now that I missed then are very minor indeed:

  • the OED makes two words, not one, of York stone (footnote j). I see our WP stub article has it as one word but a swift dip into Google Books suggests support for the OED's view. I don't mind either way, and I just mention it for the nominators' consideration.
Done - now two words.
  • In the lead we have "30 years" but in Cottage and Herb Gardens we have "one hundred herbs" and in footnote p we have "forty years". Probably best to standardise on words or figures throughout.
Done - now words throughout.
  • In the references you sometimes refer to "the Telegraph" and sometimes to "the Daily Telegraph".
Done - Four DTs now Ts.
  • In the sources I'm not sure of the thinking behind linking titles to WorldCat entries. As ISBNs or OCLCs are all provided, that should be enough of a bibliographical link. To my mind, a title with a blue link implies that clicking on it will take you to an online text. Just ending up at WorldCat or the Google Books bibliographic page is a bit of a let down, and faintly irritating. Doubly so for books with OCLCs rather than ISBNs, where the link in the title and the link in the OCLC take you to exactly the same web-page. But others may disagree with me, and I may be missing a point.

Sissinghurst is a wonderful place, and when I started reading the article the first time I thought, "This had better be good". It is, and meets the FA criteria in my view, and I am very pleased to support its promotion. – Tim riley talk 12:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - firstly, many thanks indeed for your detailed survey at Peer Review and for your further input here. I shall look in detail at the comments over the weekend but can say now that I think you, and the OED, are right on York stone. On the vexed issue of Worldcat links, I fully appreciate that some editors whose opinions I greatly respect dislike them. Personally, I think they are of some assistance to readers in making the source immediately accessible and verifiable in a single click - although I acknowledge the OCLC does this too. Can we see if others have a view, although if Jim turns up we're going to be sliding towards a minority! Lastly, Tryptofish and I both hoped we'd work up an article that came somewhere near doing the place justice. We're pleased you think we have. KJP1 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexed? I didn't realise. I hadn't run across it before as far as I can remember. I don't press the point even gently. I just mention it and leave it for your consideration. It certainly doesn't affect my support for this singularly delightful article. Tim riley talk 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
St Donat's Castle where both you and Jimfbleak indicated that you found the links disappointing and a bit pointless, as you expected them to give you a book snippet and they didn't. But I appreciate your stance. KJP1 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Tim. I agree with your first three bullet points, but will leave them to KJP1, who is closer to those issues than I. About WorldCat, I had never seen that linked before working on this page. I'm more familiar with Google Books, which some of the time does give some page views. I'm flexible as to whatever we decide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Happy to support and sign off, with gratitude to Tryptofish and KJP1 for encapsulating the glory of Sissinghurst. Tim riley talk 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now all done, including the book links. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Hi Nikki, thanks very much for looking in. The model is displayed at the castle. Tryptofish raised a flag about it a while back, Talk:Sissinghurst Castle Garden/Archives/2020/January#Image of Sir Richard's house, and I took it to Yann over at Commons. We're hoping all's in order, as it is helpful to the reader to get a sense of what the house looked like in its Elizabethan heyday. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered, myself, about where at the castle it is displayed. I'm guessing that it is in the Big Room in the West Range, but that's just a guess. If there is sourcing, I think it would be useful to add the specific location at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It certainly wasn't there when I visited, many moons ago. I doubt it's in the Big Room, I suspect it is in some kind of visitor centre. I will do some digging. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[2] This is quite a nice view of it but tells us nothing more about where it is. This [3] is what I'd really like but it's NT copyright. KJP1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source that describes the location of the model. It is [4], which also looks like a good source on the Bakers and the early history in general, and on page 46 it describes: "We were informed that the left end of the long Tudor House was a stable in Sir John's day and the right range was the servants' quarters. The stable is now a library and the right range is Nigel Nicolson's private quarters, not open to the public. We viewed the long library and wondered if Nigel was in residence. The staff did not know. We went through the front courtyard and entered the octagonal, twin towers. On one floor we found the writing room of Vita Sackville-West with her writing desk and furnishings. On another floor we found prints on the wall of how the castle looked at various periods of time and a scale model of the grand, Elizabethan manor that had been built by Sir Richard Baker, Sir John's son, who inherited Sissinghurst from his father. We climbed to the top to the upper-level observation area for a panoramic view of the garden, buildings, and surrounding area. I took pictures of the full, 360-degree view." I'm not entirely sure, but I think it sounds like the model is in the Tower. KJP1, what do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same source says on p. 30 that Queen Mary also visited Sissinghurst, in 1557. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds like it's in the Tower. Which is plausible, when one thinks about it. But I don't personally think we can use the source, as I don't think it would meet RS in the Source review. Although it looks impressively detailed and researched, it is, in essence, a self-published family history blog. I think it unlikely the author is an historian and the "tone" of the book reads a little like a cross between a family history and a travelogue. While we might get away with it for referencing an uncontroversial detail such as the location of the model, I don't think it would pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about that, and I struck part of what I had said. I do however think it is reliable simply to support that the model is there, and in the Tower (see also here). If you can find a better source, we should certainly use that instead, but if not, adding this only to the image caption seems acceptable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - sorry to trouble, but could you just confirm we're ok on this image? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although as Tryptofish notes it would be nice to be able to say more on where it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Tryptofish - Nikkimaria, Many thanks indeed. Tryptofish did actually find a source that indicates it is in the tower but I was concerned that it wouldn't meet RS as it's a web-posted family history, although an unusually detailed and well-researched one. We shall think about that, or perhaps look for something else, but thanks for confirming it's ok for FAC purposes. KJP1 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks from me, too. The source I found, [5], is described just above. Nikkimaria, if you believe that we should go ahead and use that source, I would be interested to know that, but otherwise I'll defer to KJP1 that it isn't a sufficiently reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I've little to add to Tim's comments above except to note that Polyanthus is italicised in the Primula article to which it's linked, but not in your text. You have already anticipated my objection to the pointless and time-wasting links to non-full text book sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim - many thanks indeed for the comments and the Support. I'll leave Tryptofish to deal with the Polyanthus naming issue as he's the horticultural expert. I understand your stance on the linking issue and, as noted above, I appreciate it irritates some. We'll certainly give it further thought. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the feedback. I looked into the polyanthus issue, and decided to leave it unitalicized at the Sissinghurst page, and to instead remove the italics for that word at Primula. The reason is that primula and polyanthus are both members of the genus Primula, so polyanthus is not a Latin genus name, but rather a common name for some garden plants, just as "primrose" and "cowslip" would be. (source) Also, Tony Lord, in the book we cite at the page, puts it in lowercase and non-italics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]

I was happy with the article when I reviewed it at PR, and a subsequent re-read shows no further issues I can see. The only side issue (which doesn't affect my support), is that I find myself in agreement with Tim and Jim re the Worldcat links: I advise you to get rid of them, but leave it down to you whether you do or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Thanks very much for the Support and for the PR . All greatly appreciated. I would strongly recommend a visit - it is a gorgeous place. As to the book urls - my collaborator isn't wedded to them, and all of our current Supports loathe them, so it would seem ungrateful in the extreme to retain them. Therefore they're gone, except where they link to a snippet or a pdf. This should not be taken as a guarantee as to future practice, nor as an assurance that I'll remove them from previous FAs! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I've given your Support a header, for ease of editing. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

....entirely using Sackville-West's money. - does this mean "only using Sackville-West's money." or "using all of Sackville-West's money."?
.... and the garden was a wasteland - POV writing. It sounds like it was a thriving forest of weedy grasses by Vita's quote. Either leave "wasteland" in quotes or describe more what was there. As a gardener I am interested in the latter.
  • Have expanded a little using Scott-James. See also below. "their "planting inheritance" as "a grove of nut-trees, some apple trees, a quince (and) a tangle of a rare, old gallica rose now identified as 'Rose des Maures'". The physical assets on the site were "four buildings of beautiful mellow brick, part of a moat (and) various fine walls". Does this meet the need? KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Clearing the site took almost three years - any extra info here would be good. Did they keep anything at all? Any old walls/trees/shrubs - or was it a scorched earth type procedure worthy of modern renovation shows?
  • Not quite, but close! The real assets were the Elizabethan walls remaining from the house. These were built up to provide the structures for many of the individual gardens. The base of the wall supporting the Purple Border, for example, is original, but reconstructed from that base by Powys. I've expanded it a little - see above. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...The collection of rose varieties at Sissinghurst is considered to be extraordinary as well as to encapsulate Sackville-West's approach to gardening - "extraordinary" doesn't really clarify why it is - Presumably "large and/or diverse" (in which case just say "large and diverse")
  • I had tried to make a topic sentence by sort-of cloning from the last two sentences of the Rose Garden section, which quotes Scott-James: "one of the finest collections in the world", and Brown: "the essence of Vita's gardening personality, just as her writing-room enshrines her poetic ghost". KJP1, since you have those books and I don't, perhaps you can give me some adjacent language to cite, since we obviously should not just repeat the same quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about any other plants - any really rare plants her collector friend found from somewhere exotic and introduced to England? Any specimen trees? (no trees are really discussed)
  • And again here. I am confident it covers all of the main sources that report the garden, from Nigel N in the 60's to Raven in 2014. Another point is that one has to be selective - when we were discussing plants while working on the article, I noted that Raven's index alone has fifteen entries for crocuses, and a page and a half for roses! And we're already at 101K bytes for article length. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comes across as a little light on the plant side of things but if there is nothing else really then that is ok. Otherwise it sits well prosewise and is on target for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber - Many thanks indeed for having a look at it. Shall get to your comments this evening. KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if the preference is for more on plants, that's very pleasing to me! I'll look into trees and rare plant varieties. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah...it is a garden after all :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed! I've added an introduction to the Plants section, addressing the issue of rare plant collecting, and a subsection about Trees and hedges. I hope that addresses your comments, and thanks so much for your advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better - the new bits really help. Happy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for the excellent suggestions and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

I'm not reading many articles these days, but I couldn't resist this one which, for the most part, is beautifully put together. I have a couple of initial points:

  • The lead ought to provide us with a summary of the whole article, but as written it seems to me to fall rather short of this, and is more like a brief general introduction to the subject. Could you look again at this aspect?
  • The lead states thus: "Over the next thirty years they, along with a series of notable head gardeners, turned a farmstead of "squalor and slovenly disorder"[3] into one of the world's most famous gardens.". This seems somewhat contradicted in the "Building a garden" section, which states that "... by 1939 the garden was largely complete, with the exception of the White Garden." Can you clarify?

I'm reading on, and may have a few further points which I'll raise as I go through. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton - Brian, absolutely delighted this one has whetted your appetite. Shall look at your comments to date and look forward to more. I very much hope you are keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made an initial revision of the "thirty years" sentence in the lead, to make the sentence more clearly about more than the initial building of the garden, but I doubt that it's the last word. The way I see it, the gardens have continued to evolve even after the initial few years when much of the work was done, and even after Sackville-West's and Nicolson's death. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish - we also need to consider BB's wider concern re. the lead. Here or the article Talkpage, to do so? Better the Talkpage, and bring it here when we're done? KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, so the talkpage it is. (I was only attempting a small change, and I think you have a better perspective than I do about the subject as a whole.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton - Morning Brian, we've undertaken an expansion of the lead in response to your concern that it fell some way short of a comprehensive summary. We think we've now covered all the most salient points re. the garden's history, design and importance. Your comments on this, and on the article as a whole, will be very much appreciated. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The lead is now more informative and reflective of the main article. I have completed my read-through, and have not found snything else to quibble over. As I said earlier, the article is beautifully put together, with excellent illustrations, and will be a first-class addition to our featured articles stock. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton - Brian, really appreciate the Support and the kind words. The lead's much improved for your intervention. This one's been a great collaborative effort throughout, from first expansion, through PR to here and we think we're much closer to the article the garden merits. Take very good care and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mitchell

[edit]

If you're about to rewrite the lead I'll hold off on a thorough read-through, but just few bits for you to consider:

  • This might sound silly, but what is is Sissinghurst Castle Garden? The lad tells us where it is and who created it and we can obviously infer that it's a garden, but that could mean somebody's front lawn or a huge tourist attraction.
  • What is Sissinghurst Castle? Is it the name of the garden, or is the garden attached to the castle, or something else?
  • The garden is not a listed building as state in the lead, it's a registered garden (which is similar, but different; they go on a different list, the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England). I haven't checked the other list entries in the infobox.
  • Don't put wesbites in the |work= field in citation templates (eg Rhs.org.uk), just leave it blank and put the publisher in |publisher= (eg |publisher=Royal Horticultural Society). Neither the URL nor the publisher should be in italics.
HJ Mitchell - Harry, hoping these are now as per your helpful examples. Could you sample check one or two, just to make sure they're right. Many thanks KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, for news websites the work is the name of the paper (eg The Guardian, not www.guardian.com).
See above. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historic England is not a person so shouldn't be cited as "England, Historic" (FN44)
Hoping I've sorted this but do please check. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{NHLE}} for Historic England list entries.
Again, hope I've now done these as per the template but do please have a look at one or two to confirm. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry - good to see you and thanks for taking a look. Sorry for the slight delay in responding - work suddenly got a bit frantic. To take your first three points, not an odd query at all. You'll see from the Talkpage that the article name was the subject of discussion when it was moved back in 2004. The rationale for using the SCG title then, and I think it holds good now, is that it's the title the owners, the NT, use. Unfortunately, I can't link to it just now as the NT website's down for maintenance, but this Google search page shows what I mean, [6]. The underlying reasoning, I think, is that what remains of the actual castle - a title it only received in the 18th century - is pretty fragmentary; the West Range, the Tower, the Priest's House and the South Cottage; and the whole is enveloped by the garden, often literally given Sackville-West's use of the walls as vertical axes for climbing plants. The entire site (buildings and land) was developed as a piece by the Nicolsons, as living accommodation certainly, but principally as a frame for the garden, and it is this entity that has the Grade I listing shown in your link. We've actually called it a Grade I listed structure in the lead, rather than building, which I think is appropriate. I agree the infobox uses the term building but I'm not sure the template allows for that to be changed. I'm no template expert however, and I'd be pleased to be shown I'm wrong. As to the other listings in the infobox, and in the text, these cover the castle fragments mentioned above. I'm confident that they are accurate but a check would be very helpful. As an aside, almost without exception the book sources simply call the site "Sissinghurst" but that option's not available to us.
On your referencing points, I take all of these on board and will attend to them. My co-nominator and I are going to expand the lead to seek to address BB's concern that it doesn't fully cover the article content. We'd be very grateful if you'd return and give the whole thing another viewing when that's done. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just with regard to listing, "listed" and "listed building" (and variants) have a specific legal meaning. A registered garden is not the same thing as a listing, or a scheduled monument (which is something different again). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harry - absolutely fine to call it a "Grade I registered garden" if you think that's more accurate. But I've no idea how to reflect that in the infobox. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's accurate. I changed it for you in the infobox because it took me a few minutes to work out how (there's a list of valid parameters at Template:Designation, which is called by the infobox template). I'll pop back at the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I've intentionally left all of this to KJP1, who knows more about those aspects than I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harry - Many thanks. I shall get on and take a look at those refs. We're working on an expanded lead and it should be ready in a day or so. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell - As you'll see, we've expanded the lead to try to address BB's concern. I've also redone the refs., including the NHLE ones, which I hope meet the need, and turned 'listed' to 'registered' as appropriate. Your thoughts on these, and on the article as a whole, would be very welcome. Glad you liked the bear! KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've laready got a few thorough reviews and there's really not a lot to criticise so I'll just pick up a few things that piqued my interest:

  • A nearest city/major town might be helpful for those of us not familiar with Kent geography
The problem is which? Cranbrook, Kent is the nearest town, but it's not notable. Royal Tunbridge Wells is 13 miles away. Would that help people place it?
  • Why was Vita so adamantly opposed to giving the property to the NT? Was it something to do with the NT, or just heer desire to hold onto it?
The sources I have don't say but my guess is a mix of a desire for immortality and her loathing of losing Knole, which went to the Trust in 47/48. She was reconciled before she died, writing to Nigel (59?) that she would understand if he took the course he subsequently did.
  • Do we know why Nigel was so determined to give it to the NT? And why not (for example) the RHS?
Again, there's nothing in the sources I have. My guess is that the close connections to the NT were an influence. Vita was on its Gardens Committee, and Harold was on its Executive Committee, a very aristocratic affair!
  • You use a lot of explanatory footnotes, some of which are quite lengthy. Just bear in mind that this is supposed to be summary style, we're not writing a book.
Yep - I concede we've perhaps gone a bit overboard on footnotes this time. But there was so much to "cram, cram, cram" in!

Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry - really glad you liked it. I've responded above. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought (this had slipped my mind, but my mrs was listening to No Such Thing as a Fish last night and Sissinghurst was mentioned; it always makes me feel clever when I know what they're talking about!): How would you feel about moving the last section of the history (1967–present) to the bottom and renaming it something like "Sissinghurst today" so we have a conclusion at the end (rather than in the middle) that brings us up to date? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - Harry, always happy to help bolster your self-esteem! I see what you mean, in that it would "finish" the article with the most up-to-date material. But it would also have the effect of splitting the flow, in that we'd have History / Description / More (recent) History. That wouldn't follow the approach I've previously used, and there was a discussion at Chartwell which ended in a clear consensus for History, then Description. Let me see what Tryptofish thinks, but I'm leaning agin. Now, while I've got you, can I plead for your stated support? I get the sense from your comments that you think it meets the FAC, although I appreciate you might like a re-arrangement. I'm hoping to close this up reasonably quickly, as I've two other projects on the go now and, as a simple soul, I struggle with more than one article at a time. Thanks again and all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Such Thing as a Fish? I suppose I should take umbrage at that. But on a more serious note, I think I agree with KJP1 about splitting the flow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well, I think the article as-is lacks some sort of conclusion to tie it all together and bring the reader into the present day. But you guys are happy with it, the content is excellent, and I'm in a minority on a fairly small issue. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

[edit]

I'd echo the comments above, that there's really very little of any substance to find fault with in this article.

  • "the building may have been originally attached to Sir Richard Baker's 1560s house" might be better rearranged as "the building may originally have been attached to Sir Richard Baker's 1560s house".
Done.
Done.
Chiswick Chap - many thanks indeed for taking the time to have a look. I agree with both the second and third points and have amended the article accordingly. I also take the first point - personally (complete OR), I think Vita was disinclined to acknowledge her debt to Jekyll - and shall discuss with my co-nom who is taking the lead on matters horticultural. Thanks again and all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I'm not encouraging anything OR-ish. I do think we could say, however, that the garden rooms idea seems to have been current before Sissinghurst. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! But yes, a line or two on earlier precedents, as there also were for single colour-palette gardens, would be useful - and can be soundly sourced. Reiss, Lindsay and Jekyll, all experimented with them. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Garden room is a redirect to Sunroom. I'm starting to think that it merits its own page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some preliminary research into the origin of the "garden room" idea. It quickly becomes apparent that one has to be careful to distinguish the "garden room" as we mean it here, from sunroom-like rooms of a house that open out onto a garden. There's a large literature about Pliny the younger describing garden rooms, but this sounds to me like the architectural form, although that may have influenced the garden form: [7] (bottom of p. 10), and [8] (p. 130). Sources that discuss it in terms of multiple gardens within a larger garden do seem to place it in the time of Jekyll and Sackville-West: [9] (bottom of p. 16), and [10] (p. 177). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no doubt that Jekyll used them, and may well have been their originator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious place for a piece on earlier 'garden rooms"/single colour-palette approaches is the Influences section. I'll have a go at a short para. and we can see what we think. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab in a new second para. Per Tryptofish's suggestion, I found quite a nice piece on Pliny, though we may decide we need to caveat that a bit. I rather like the Muthesius quote. Does it convey the sense of the pre-Sissinghurst history of these rooms? KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's great! That's all I wanted, too. I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - and thanks very much for the support and the most helpful suggestions. I think Tryptofish may still want to caveat Pliny - looking at the literature it's hard to decide if they're garden rooms in the sense we mean here, or rooms looking on to gardens, or rooms designed to look like gardens, with painted trellises, birds etc. And then you start shading into Original Research again! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed I did. From what I've read, it's clear that they are rooms looking out onto gardens via openings (not simply windows), with trellises and the like variously located within the room or within the garden. Chiswick Chap, thanks very much for leading us to add this information! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see from the FAC talk page that KJP1 is canvassing for a source review here. Bad luck, KJ!, you get me. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star! Trypto and I have all the offline stuff if you need anything. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beaten to it - you nearly had a disorderly queue forming! - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All these gentlemen callers - my dance card overflows! KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And they don't come more disorderly than ... no, no, a verray parfit gentil knyght as any fule kno. Do add to my review, below, SC, if you think it necessary.

I have reviewed, using Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC as my guide. I have done no spot checks, but am familiar with several of the published books. The book sources are wide, relevant and authoritative, with a range of publication dates but a preponderance of recent ones, which is generally a good thing. Media sources cited appear responsible and credible. I have a few very minor drafting points:

  • Sackville-West 1991, Forward ix. – You mean "foreword" I imagine.
  • Sackville-West, Vita. "The Land". Gutenberg Project – Order idiotic though it be the publisher is Project Gutenberg rather than the more sensible version you have constructed.
  • Five titles where hyphens should be replaced by en-dashes:
    • Vita's Other World - A Gardening Biography of V. Sackville-West
    • Sissinghurst - Portrait of a Garden.
    • Vita - The Life of V. Sackville-West.
    • Sissinghurst - An Unfinished History
    • Sissinghurst - Vita Sackville-West and the Creation of a Garden
  • The Long Weekend: Life in the English Country House Between The Wars – I don't think you want the second definite article capitalised.

Those minor points apart, I sign off the source review as satisfactorily completed. Tim riley talk 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - muchas gracias, mi amigo, and all done, I hope. I swear I shall never understand those en-dashes. What is wrong with a bloody hyphen! All done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: We seem to have dried up on reviewers, having not had any new comments since the end of January. We've six Supports, and if Harry's not formally confirmed his, I think his comments show he's not an Oppose. The Image and Source reviews are done. Is there anything else that needs attention? KJP1 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I will promote this shortly as we have a clear consensus to promote. However, the duplinks could be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I'm not sure that they were intentional or that they are all needed. This tool will highlight any duplication. But that need not delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sissinghurst_Castle_Garden/archive1&oldid=950215845"