Talk:Stowe Gardens

Section: Enlightenment politics
This is the text from a section on enlightenment politics and the garden. it was originally copy/pasted from the Stowe House page, however, it needs referencing and probably expansion: Since the time for the National Trust pilot is coming to a close, I've moved the text here, in hope that a fellow editior might want to tackle it. Best wishes Lajmmoore (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "As Stowe evolved from an English baroque garden into a pioneering landscape park, the gardens became an attraction for many of the nobility, including political leaders. Wars and rebellions were reputedly discussed among the garden's many temples; the artwork of the time reflected this by portraying caricatures of the better-known politicians of history taking their ease in similar settings. Stowe began to evolve into a series of natural views to be appreciated from a perambulation rather than from a well-chosen central point. In their final form the Gardens were the largest and most elaborate example of what became known in Europe as the English garden. Many of the temples and monuments in the garden celebrate the political ideas of the Whig party and include quotes by many of the writers who are part of Augustan literature, also philosophers and ideas belonging to the Age of Enlightenment."

Move to article space
Just a note on the direct move to article space, rather than using AfC. This is based on advice here from editor Johnbod. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Paid pilot - National Trust
To be more explicit, this page was created from an article split of content at Stowe House. It is part of a short paid pilot commissioned by the National Trust. There is further information here. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
Theleekycauldron (cc Lajmmoore), the split version (2nd edit) is rated as C (48.6%) by the rating tool and the latest version (68th edit) as B or above (96.8%), so a lot of work has been done to the article. Do you agree it would be eligible for DYK if promoted to GA, obviously subject to the normal review? TSventon (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @TSventon: Yes, I think any reasonable interpretation of the edit history would hold that a lot of good-faith work was put into this article to have it qualify for GA :) for the record, my specialized ORES tool shows that FA is currently the strongest rating, but the average rating is somewhat above GA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much @TSventon and @Theleekycauldron - most of the editing has been re-structuring and adding referencing to the content on the page. I have never been involved with FA, and only once with GA, so if either of you have a suggestion on which might be a good route to take, I would be very keen to hear it. Thanks for your guidance and help Lajmmoore (talk) 10:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to help, Lajmmoore! GA would be your first stop – just keep the GA criteria in the back of your head when making this better! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello @TSventon & @Theleekycauldron - the article is now GA, and I tried to re-submit a DYK, but I got a message that the Template was in use - would you be able to guide me as to what to do? This is the nomination template:

Working towards a GA nomination
Points to consider when working to move the page to GA status, please add to them:

What do you think to this as a start ? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it’s a very good summary. A few other things to consider:
 * Images - too many? I love illustrations, and this article cries out for them, but there are an awful lot. This creates the second issue: }
 * Masses of white space - this isn’t my area of expertise, and if it’s not yours either, we may need to seek advice.
 * Quotations - as with images, these are extensive, too extensive?
 * NT refs. An alternative, which I prefer, is the NHLE template. But it’s just a preference and the NT records may include more info. KJP1 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much @KJP1, so thinking about each point in turn:
 * Images - I just moved these all over when I split the page from Stowe House - I have no strong feelings about them
 * White space - yes! I have tried and not managed to work out how to fix it - do you know a person/project we could ask?
 * Quotations - again, I moved the content over when the page was split. I agree they are too long.
 * NT refs - so these do have more information on them than the NHLE ones - the NT update theirs, and the info does not necessarily move across. It wouldn't (probably) take too long to supply the NHLE one as a supplementary source?
 * Lajmmoore (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I worked out how to remove the white space - template:clear was in use below each paragraph, and I pruned a few images Lajmmoore (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * added ticks for clarity Lajmmoore (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Additions to complete the preparation work for GA review Lajmmoore (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw
Editor Rodw gave some helpful comments to support work toward GA status. They are here. I'll work through them to improve the article. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Superscript numbers
Throughout the article, along with the standard reference superscripts, you have inserted another fixed series, what are these supposed to mean, there doesn't seem to be any key or map to refer to? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Murgatroyd49 - do you mean when it looks like this: "... to gain admittance to the property. :144" - if so the 144 is the page number of the book. If I've misunderstood, please could you give me a little more detail? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was what I was referring to, page numbers should be inside the ref tags. See the cite templates in the edit area for the way to do it. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Murgatroyd49 for pointing this out - I hadn't realised there was a template, so I'm just replacing them according to Template:Rp. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of help Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)