Talk:Cottage garden

GA Review
I have started a review of this article to see if it fits the criteria for a WP:Good article. The criteria and my comments can be found here.  SilkTork  *YES! 23:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Placed on hold until the end of January 2009 to see if the article can be developed.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has met GA criteria and passed as a Good Article.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, the lead should be short
From WP:MOSINTRO:


 * NOTE: This unsigned comment above is from User:Hafspajen.


 * I've reverted your change per WP:BRD. Please read the entirety of WP:Lede. There are too many ways that it supports the GA approved lede of this article to recount here. I'll point you especially to WP:Lede. Also, the name of this article is "Cottage garden." To have a section called "Cottage gardens" is redundant and strange. Also, having written this article, I'm more than a bit familiar with the fact that the current three paragraph lede is "able to stand alone as a concise overview," "define(s) the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points," "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article," "More than 30,000 characters—Three or four paragraphs." Finally, if you still want to go against our manual of style for lead sections, I request you draw in the editor who passed this as a Good Article, User:SilkTork. First Light (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * p.s. The current lede does in fact review the article. First para says what a cottage garden is. Second gives its origins, which is a significant part of the article. Third reviews what the current "cottage garden" is in design and plants. In other words, the lede does a good job of giving a "concise overview" of the article. First Light (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the view stated by User:First Light and assert that I, too, consider it to be a good lede. WP:LEAD advises that a lede ought not be more than four paragraphs. I think the three paragraphs in its current form are adequate and provide a concise overview. Concise does not mean "short" nor should it be equated with "short"--indeed, Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines "concise" as marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail. Opinions often "vary as to appropriate length" of an article or a lede, but they are just that--opinions. That is, they are inherently subjective. Can you provide any objective reasons in support of your criticism of the lede section indicating why it is not "concise" and perhaps take the next step of offering some cogent suggestions as to what should be excised for the sake of brevity without sacrificing the lede's comprehensive summary of the topic? Because without any objective and actionable criticism, I can only continue to disagree with your assessment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hafspajen, I reverted your "lead too long" tagging of the article. I'd advise you to achieve consensus here. Do you have any specific criticisms other than the subjective and unactionable statement that the lede section is "too long" for your tastes? Seriously, if you're going to complain, give us something actionable and specific that we can appropriately address. Without anything objective and actionable, your assertion of "it's too long" is a futile and frustrating waste of time for us. I will be glad to work at addressing your concerns--and I am certain that User:First Light will too--if you raise concerns that are specific and constructive.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Further, in your paragraph above, you mentioned peacocking terms. I fail to see any such examples. What is your specific complaint?--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * e/c Indeed, I would be more than happy to have an intelligent and specific discussion about this. It could be that the longest paragraph could be broken into two, for example. But take a look at some of Wikipedia's Featured articles for similar examples. I just clicked on the home page's daily FA, Percy Fender, as a random example for comparison, and the lead is not very dissimilar from this one. First Light (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * My idea, ColonelHenry, was turned down. What I think that there are too many details in the lead, that it should be shortened and have another section as intro, bellow. I think that going in to particulars like what sort of plants were used and so on is a bit to detailed. But if you like it this way I am not going to protest any more. The peacock terms has nothing to do with this article. I t was in the Manual of style. This is the problem: Flowers common to early cottage gardens included traditional florist's flowers, such as primroses and violets, along with flowers chosen for household use, such as calendula and various herbs. Others were the old-fashioned roses that bloomed once a year with rich scents, simple flowers like daisies, and flowering herbs. A well-tended topiary of traditional form, perhaps a cone-shape in tiers, or a conventionalised peacock, would be part of the repertory, to which the leisured creators of "cottage gardens" would add a sun-dial, crazy paving on paths with thyme in the interstices, and a rustic seat, generally missing in the earlier cottage gardens. Hafspajen (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced the concerns about the length of the lead are appropriate; however, I think the lead could be tightened. For example, the lead mentions topiary, which is not covered in the main body of the article. Having said that, it appears that this matter regarding the lead length has been resolved.   SilkTork  ✔Tea time  17:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @SilkTork: Thanks for coming around these parts to offer your comments, it is much appreciated. I do agree, the lede can be tightened a bit, and I do see a few passages I would revise.
 * @Hafspajen: I do agree that the enumeration of flowers needs to be reined in, but I do believe a little of that detail is necessary to mention.
 * General Comment: I might take a day or two later this week to give it a thorough copyedit, but I'll wait until we discuss this through to consensus with Hafspajen so that we can address those issues and the others in one fell swoop.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the entire sentence with the topiary mention could be removed (not added by me, by the way), because it is too specific. Most of what is mentioned in that sentence is too specific and not general. The mention of specific flowers in the prior two sentences is more by way of example of the types of flowers, so that should be kept in, since it does convey the general idea by its use of specific examples. I appreciate the specific suggestions, because I'm very happy to see improvements to this article. First Light (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)