Talk:Stowe Gardens/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Comments

Y Domesday Book. Not clear why this should be mentioned here; it might be relevant to the village article Stowe, Buckinghamshire but the connection with the gardens is not apparent. Suggest we just cut it.

Y Punning reference: the motto is clearly punning, but can one speak of physical installations as such? Maybe reword a little.

Y "it was altered and adapted as the gardens were progressively naturalised." Perhaps this is running ahead here: readers will not know what "naturalised" means, and it doesn't really need to be mentioned at this point anyway. Could just say "later remodelled" or something of that sort.

Y "Capability Brown, all made" - remove the comma.

Y Lancelot 'Capability' Brown - not sure why the "Lancelot" and the scare quotes here at 2nd mention, nor the overlink.

Y Not sure about the function of the paragraph of "interior inscriptions above the doors" in "Temple of Ancient Virtue", again with a generous helping in two languages. The citation to Clarke may prove that these are genuine, but no indication of what Clarke or others think about the inscriptions is given, nor their significance, if any. One can't help wondering if they were purely to give an antique air, in which case the paragraph isn't really justified.

Y The same goes for the long inscription about the dog in "The Temple of British Worthies". This comes across as rich man's whimsy and sentimentality, so unless there is some scholarly comment about it, it's WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY at that. I've shortened this quotation, subject to looking for more secondary literature - I may yet remove it all though.

A thought about Fido. This, rather interesting, article suggests that the inscription for Elizabeth I, the only woman, is telling as to why she was included, and the message that the temple was intended to send; "Who confounded the Projects, and destroyed the Power, that threatened to oppress the Liberties of Europe... and, by a wise, a moderate, and a popular Government, gave Wealth, Security, and Respect to England." Might be worth a swap? KJP1 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this infomation - you're right it is a good swap Lajmmoore (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y Not sure if the very long extracts of poetry really work in an article. Much better would be a few short extracts from each poem, together with scholarly comments</; at the moment we have almost no secondary commentary and a large mass of primary material, which seems the wrong way around. Do refs [200] and [201] not offer a bit more detail? It would help if some of "th' ambitious Hill" and other such 18th century allusions could be keyed directly to the Gardens: a sketch map would be a blessing too. The Plan in "Early tourism" is unfortunately so fuzzy as to be unusable, but its basic outlines could be traced and overlaid with numbers or text labels for navigation.

Long extracts are removed

more secondary material on poetry

I don't think I have the skills to produce a map I'm afraid.

Not to worry for GA. Someone will probably make one eventually.

YThere is a very short "Cultural significance" section, which apart from the quoted poetry comes to less than 350 words in an article of over 140,000 bytes. This is inadequate, as it's this section that justifies having an article at all. As for the claims, "These account for nearly 0.5% of the approximately 9,000 grade I listings in England and Wales" is remarkably close to worthless: 27 out of 9000 would be 0.3%, so I suppose some buildings have 2 or more listings for different aspects, but this doesn't seem encyclopedic in any way. In "Arts", we're told there are engravings, wash drawings, china, and watercolours, just the bare facts. At least these are cited, but the feeling is as if we had nothing but primary facts here, with no interpretation by scholars and critics. Even the "Poetry" section is entirely without comment (beyond the poems themselves).

This is much improved. Thanks to both of you. BTW normally the reviewer strikes items once they're satisfied... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I didn't realise that was the convention - I was just doing it to keep track. Shall I unstrike them once I'm through? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry now, just leave it, I can see what's what. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

YThat takes us back to the lead, which boldly asserts "arguably the most significant example of the English landscape garden style." and " notable for the scale, the design, the size and the number of monuments set across the designed landscape", and "the fact they have been a tourist attraction for over three hundred years." The last of these is a bare fact, and at least broadly supported by the "Early tourism" section, though the "over three hundred years" does rather skip over the question of whether such tourism was continuous, or whether there was a burst of it in the 18th century, revived in the 20th? The other claims seem to be lacking support at the moment, or at least, it's not very conspicuous. The article would, in any event, be much strengthened by some reliably-cited discussion of these claims to fame, which are obviously important to the article.

Overlinks - there are quite a few revealed by the tool, e.g. Grade I listed, Bridgeman, Buckingham, Apollo, Stowe, Scheemakers (several times), James Gibbs (several times), Britannia, Rysbrack, Whig politics, exedra, Coade stone, doric, entablature, William Kent (several times), Vincenzo Valdre, Thomas Pitt, ha-ha, belvederes, Borra, Wotton House, Beech, Kinloss, Blore, Trent park, Homer, Socrates, Epaminondas, Walpole, Wedgwood, Alexander Pope (that one may be acceptable in the context, or you could use a "further" link to him at the head of the section).

Please could you point me to the overlink tool? I don't currently use it and it seems that with such a long article it would be useful to address this.

Not my job, but you need to put the line importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // User:Evad37/duplinks-alt into your common.js page, i.e. User:Lajmmoore/common.js - obvs I'm not responsible for anything you do over there.

Images

There is a lot of sandwiching, where a pair of images to left and right squeeze the text into a narrow column if the window is made relatively narrow. Stowe Gardens#Statues surrounding the Grecian Valley is a good example, but there are plenty of others. We'll do better to arrange groups of images in small galleries at intervals through the text.

Much improved. A bit of a mess remains after the section "Features close to Oxford Avenue" where there's still a column of images straying into the next section(s); again, these would much better be organised as a gallery like the ones above.

Y Some images like "The Boycott Pavilion" are much too large (area = width x height) compared to the standard image. As well as sandwiching, see above.

Y Why do we need images of all 4 statues in the Temple of Ancient Virtue, with both Latin and English? It's not clear that they add anything of significance to the article. If a scholar has written that they epitomize the Temple family's attitude etc etc then there might be a reason. If not, they're basically undue.

Y Same for the 16 statues and inscriptions in the Temple of British Worthies (WP:NOTCATALOG). Unless a scholar has remarked on the assemblage and made some deep point about their significance, there's little or no justification for such a mass of primary material. Currently the explanation given in the text is "The choice of who was considered a 'British Worthy' was very much influenced by the Whig politics of the family, the chosen individuals falling into two groups, eight known for their actions and eight known for their thoughts and ideas.[73]" I'm not sure that single sentence justifies including any of the images, let alone all of them. The implication is rather that the actual art (style of sculpture, quality, accuracy of representation, etc) is tangential to the single thought that Whig politics were important, i.e. that the images are not needed in the encyclopedia.

Y Same for the Saxon deities really. They don't seem remarkable as sculpture (again, maybe scholars have said otherwise), but are chiefly of interest for the Whig theory again. One image (the one in the V&A, probably) would seem to suffice.

References

? [171] cites the 1749 Dialogue but not the 1748 Views. Perhaps a brief quote illustrating the views of Callophilus and Polyphthon would be useful.

Quote to add

? Good use has been made of the main sources like Clarke and Bevington. The same can't be said of the more minor sources where quite a few refs are to entire books without page numbers (or possibly chapter/section names): ~~[11]~~, [102] (via google books, which has no page numbers online), ~~[180]~~, ~~[181]~~, [182] (via google books, which has no page numbers online), ~~[187]~~, ~~[196]~~, [198] (via google books, which has no page numbers online), ~~[199]~~, ~~[200]~~.

Page numbers or equivalent are required. Google Books search does in fact give page nos in snippets. Or you can give named and numbered chapters and named subsections.

I agree it does if the google books search returns a snippet view, but not all publishers release the works with pages numbers 101 is an example, so too is 189 - if you have a way to access them I would very much appreciate hearing it!

As I already suggested, the best thing is to scroll to find the section or subsection, and then to look at the table of contents to find the chapter number and title. Other approaches are to use ordinary Google search with an exact phrase which you know is on the right page; to use the Wikipedia Library Request; to visit a library; or to buy the book.

Y [184], an encyclopedia, should name the applicable entry, presumably with the word "Stowe" in it somewhere.

Y [189] does not seem to be fully described with respect to Stowe.

Y [194] "Museum, Victoria and Albert". Shome short of mishtake, shurely, Mr and Mrs Museum? (Maybe link it, too)

Y [202] - what is Getty Research Institute to do with this 18th century text. Please delete. (They sponsored the digitisation, so clarified that in reference.)

Summary

This is a well-made article that only needs some rather minor attention, and it will be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we could all go on polishing and formatting this for quite a while, but I'm confident that the article now covers "the main points" and I hope everyone will agree it is more balanced, justifying the confident claims in the lead rather better. It's a Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1

Cultural significance

Re. CC's, very valid, point on Cultural significance, I think there are sources that could usefully be mined to demonstrate why architectural/landscape historians etc. think the gardens at Stowe are so important. Two obvious examples are Stowe House: Saving an Architectural Masterpiece and the revised Buckinghamshire Pevsner, although there are plenty of others. While the Morris focuses primarily on the house, the gardens get good coverage, and it's probably the most up-to-date study of Stowe around. As an example, the first chapter, by Jeremy Musson, is entitled "The significance of the 'superb mansion at Stowe'" and begins; "Stowe House is the centrepiece of a landscape garden of international repute". Similarly, the Pevsner begins, "But more important even than the mansion was the 18th century garden and park." There's also the key point about the sheer number of blue-chip designers who undertook work there; Bridgeman, Vanbrugh, Kent, Gibbs, Brown etc. If User:Lajmmoore would like, I'd be pleased to work with them to beef up the section. KJP1 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KJP1 yes I'd be very grateful for the help on that topic! Please go ahead. I'll work on some of the more technical things above, and make sure I use an 'in use' template when I am actively editing. Lajmmoore (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lajmmoore - Don’t worry about “In use”. You edit the article and I’ll look to work something up in a sandbox. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lajmmoore - I've had a stab at a "Cultural significance" section, here. A few things:

It's a draft, for you to accept/reject/alter as you choose;
You may feel there is too much overlap between the existing "Enlightenment politics" section and the suggested "Sermon in stone" sub-section. They could perhaps be combined;
I've tried to fold in your existing "Architecture and design" / "Arts" / "Planting" / "Poetry" sub-sections without altering the text too much. But I may not have achieved this! Also, I have a weakness for quotes which you may not share;
I've added the extra works I've used in an "Additional sources" section. I'm not quite sure how to handle these as some current sources are cited in the "Bibliography" section, and sfn-linked to the References, while others are cited in full in the "References" section. Personally, I prefer the former and I've set them up to allow for that, but your call;
I've put a paragraph in on the recent controversy over the DTE block. It doesn't belong in the "Critical significance" section but would, I think, sit well as the conclusion to the "21st century" History sub-section. Personally, I think it raises an interesting point around the school/historic landscape challenge, and also around the relationship between the school and the Trust. But obviously your call.
Assuming you want to incorporate some/all of the section, we'll need to work out how to splice it in, but it shouldn't be too difficult. Aside for the Additional sources issue noted above, I think I've followed your referencing style. Then we'll obviously need to see whether it addresses @Chiswick Chap's issue.

Give me a shout when you've had a chance to review. KJP1 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like good progress at first glance. There are orange links to dab pages for Claremont and eye-catcher. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC - many thanks. Have removed these. KJP1 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KJP1 this is fantastic! Thank you very much indeed for the new sources and the work combining the existing material. It reads very well. I wasn't aware of the 2022 DTE issues, but think it is very good to include it in the article - thanks for bringing it in. Would you like me to start combining it in, or would you like to? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad that there's something you can use. Entirely easy as to how/who does the combine - whichever works best for you. KJP1 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @KJP1 thank so much for the work you put in. Please would you be able to check that the additional sources are incorporated? I got tangled with the styles and don't think I have been able to do it. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks great! And I love the galleries. I've folded the extra Sources into the bibliography. I think you're nearly there, and if there's anything else I can do to help, just shout. One thought - I think the lead image in the infobox is....boring. It's not a great image, in a number of ways, and some playing fields are front and centre. Stowe has fewer Good images than one might expect, but there's got to be something more exciting.

You've done a superb job on this, and I fully expect it to hit GA soon. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining tasks

Four remaining tasks are left:

Add quote for Callophilus, etc.
Add further secondary commentary on poetry (?)
Sort out overlinks
3 x page numbers to find

Lajmmoore (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this sort of summarizing is a good idea as we have a list already. You have however missed the image placement item which is not completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.