Wikipedia:Peer review/Sissinghurst Castle Garden/archive1

Sissinghurst Castle Garden
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 Hchc2009. Among a number of valuable inputs during the article's development, his plan was of particular assistance. KJP1 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Quick first comment – more to come. For starters you need to reconsider how you name the two gardeners. I can think of at least one editor who will have an apoplexy if you dare refer to the lady by her first name, and that being so you'd be well advised not to call Nicolson "Harold" either. If VS-W had taken her husband's surname it would be another matter, but as you can call her Sackville-West and him Nicolson with no question of confusion between the two, the vigilantes − and possibly even the village aunties – will be after you if you don't surname the two. Back later after a thorough read-through.  Tim riley  talk   19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We've been discussing that quite a lot at the article talk page. One complication is that there are multiple Nicolsons, and it would get a bit kludgy to refer to each of them by their full names. Also, it appears that most major biographers use the first names. KJP1 is looking to see whether RSs can be quoted to say, in a footnote, that this is by convention. On the other hand, Wikipedia has its own conventions. I hadn't thought of that apoplectic reaction until you pointed it out (probably for saying "lady" instead of "woman", as well), but I know exactly who you mean, and you are probably right that it would be best not to poke that particular hornet's nest. (And no sexist meaning to "poke", either. {) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim - first off, delighted you've the time to review it, and hope you enjoy it. As ever, your input will be invaluable. Now, the V&H issue. First off, it was my call initially but we have thought long and hard about it. There's a discussion on the issue on the Talkpage and we recognised from the outset that it would not find universal favour! But there are two key points, I think. First, so many of the Sackville-West/Nicolson clans have written about Sissinghurst, and V&H, that we felt it would become very laborious to spell out which S-W/N was speaking at any particular point. Secondly, at the suggestion of my co-nominator, we looked closely at what the sources say. And, almost without exception, they use the first names. That said, we're entirely open to differing opinions and it may well be that others share your view, here and at FAC. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Two initial thoughts. First, it is not only the editor whom both Tryptofish and I have in mind who would boggle at first names. To be frank, it looks a little cosy and twee to me as "Harold" and "Vita", and I shall be interested to see what SchroCat thinks, who knows a thing or two about this question. Secondly, if you are determined to stick to Christian names, make jolly sure your published precedents are sufficiently numerous and unassailable to let you say that Wikipedia would be out of step with normality if surnaming. Otherwise the Met Office's forecast is Hissy Fits strong to gale force.  Tim riley  talk   23:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just read through the entire page to get a feel for what the change to last names would entail, and I'm starting to think it would be quite workable. Careful use of "he" and "she" in some places, to avoid too much repetition of names, looks OK to me. And I increasingly agree with Tim riley that we would run into such a storm with the present version of the page that it would not be worth it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This was such a pain in the neck that I'd advise you to have a glance at it if you are considering first names. (Mind you, there was an attempt of a grudge being settled as background to the whole sorry situation too!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is all very sound advice, and I think there's a clear view that I've made an unhelpful and unnecessary rod for our backs., I'll have a go at it and see where we get to. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * With only slightly moist eyes, I've now replaced V&H with SW&N. I'll read through again but I'd appreciate other eyes having a check to see if I've introduced any clunkiness thereby. KJP1 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll pop in on Monday for a proper review of things. To those who haven't seen the FAC on the Spaghetti House siege, any comments would be more than welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Second bite:
 * Spellings: paneled, labeled, center, mislabeled. More on the substance of the text shortly.  Tim riley  talk   13:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim - have copied this out and done Find and replace on Word but, with the single exception of "mislabeled", I can't locate the others. It very well might be I've missed them or that another editor's corrected them. If there are any still there, could you point them out. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with them now.  Tim riley  talk   16:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for all of this (and I guessed correctly). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Enough! More anon.  Tim riley  talk   00:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First batch of comments on the text:
 * Rise, decline, collapse: c.1490–1930
 * Picture caption: you should, I think, make it explicit that the picture is conjectural.
 * "His son, Sir Richard Baker" – the last person mentioned was T Sackville. You mean, I think, that Richard Baker was in fact John Baker's son, not Sackville's,
 * "In 2018, an important…" - otiose comma.
 * "used to provide accommodation for farm labourers" – a bit wordy: perhaps just "used to house" them?
 * "but attracted no interest for some two years" – it may not have attracted any bids, but how do you know it attracted no interest?
 * Vita Sackville-West
 * "some 25 miles from Sissinghurst" – there is a "some" in the preceding sentence. An OK construction, but best not have in two consecutive sentences.
 * "held enormous significance" – I think you want "importance" here, unless you are going to explain what it signified.
 * Building a garden
 * "no electricity, running water, nor drain" – "or", I think, rather than "nor" here.
 * picture caption: you might give Lady Lancaster a blue link
 * War and after
 * "he retired to Sissinghurst and he never left it thereafter" – do you really mean that he didn't set foot outside the place for three whole years?
 * Nigel Nicolson
 * "undertook significant remodelling at the castle" – and what did it signify?
 * The National Trust: 1968–2018
 * The MoS swishes its skirts at definite articles in headers: pray ponder if this one is needed.
 * This is the first mention of Anne Scott-James in the text. The later blue link needs moving up to here. Also we could do with some context for her here: why is she cited as an authority on visitor numbers? I think we need something on the lines of "Anne Scott-James in her 1974 study of Sissinghurst…"


 * Tim - many thanks. Batch 1 all attended to. Two queries. First, are you ok with the Anne-Scott-James introduction? And re. HN not leaving Sissinghurst from 1965 to his death, J. L-M says, "...in May 1965 he retired to Sissinghurst which he was never to leave again". While I suppose he may have popped out for milk, I think it does mean that he stayed put. Certainly, an event like his 80th birthday party, which you might have thought would have been held in London, took place at the castle. Are you ok with leaving it? KJP1 (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you're happy with it, that's fine. I have had a rummage in The Times archives for 1965 to 1968 and there's no mention of his being at any events (memorial services etc) in London that one might have expected. He remained a member of the executive committee of the National Trust until 1968, but whether he attended meetings is another matter. I see the ODNB article says, "His last years, however, were spent in melancholy decline at Sissinghurst", which is consistent with what JL-M says. Your pen picture of Anne Scott-James is admirably full but perhaps packs too much in: I might omit the "journalist, gardening writer and"; you should certainly lose the comma before "non-", which is turning an accurate restrictive relative clause into an inaccurate non-restrictive one. –  Tim riley  talk   10:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: the surnaming reads admirably so far as I have got down the text. Nice job, KJP!  Tim riley  talk   00:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Concluding batch
 * West Range
 * Grade I listed is already linked in the previous paragraph.


 * Tower
 * "no fewer than seven classical doorways" – I'd lose the editorial “no fewer than".
 * "out-of-bounds to all but her dogs" – the OED doesn't hyphenate out of bounds except when used attributively.
 * "by prior invitation" – can one have a retrospective invitation?
 * South Cottage
 * Repeated link to Grade II* listing.
 * Gardens
 * "Anne Scott-James set out the principles" – past tense, but she is in the present tense earlier – "records 13,200…", which I think is the conventional form (though illogical when one thinks about it).
 * "their contributions, "as much, if not more" than Sackville-West's…" – a quote like this looks rather in the air without an inline attribution.
 * "Scott Smith has plans to extend the flowering season" – beware of WP:DATED. If you can say he announced plans in 2018 or whatever if would be better.
 * White Garden
 * Rosa 'Iceberg' needs double quotes unless there is some special MoS dispensation for plant varieties. It also struck me as looking a bit odd. Even I, a townie with the opposite of green fingers, have heard of Iceberg roses, and the Latin seems a touch gratuitous, me judice.
 * I agree, deleted Rosa. As for the single quotes, however, that's correct as is. It is a specific convention for named plant cultivars. (With Iceberg, there is an additional issue of trade names, but we can ignore that here.) Editors are currently discussing how to format these things at Village pump (policy) where this is currently the consensus for flowering plants – but don't dare set foot into the naming of domestic animal breeds without a bullet-proof jacket. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Cottage and Herb Gardens
 * "The dominating colours in the Cottage garden" – if you're capitalising "Rose Garden" and "Herb Garden", why not "Cottage garden" too?
 * "built around a camomile bush" – loud applause from me for the spelling. I keep seeing an alien and unnecessary spelling "chamomile" lately. Good to see you resisting it here.
 * "Turkey" – WP:OVERLINK
 * Walks, the Nuttery, and the Moat
 * "The notable wisteria" – I'm curious to know how you distinguish a notable wisteria from an unnotable one.
 * Orchard
 * "is by Francis Pym" – really the one you link to? Nothing about garden design in his WP article.
 * Roses
 * "194 distinct rose varieties" – what, I wonder, is an indistinct rose variety?
 * I agree, deleted "distinct". Tim, I want to say thank you to you for so many excellent corrections. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * More single quotes for varieties. Just checking it's OK.
 * As above, this is how it is done for flowering plants. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. I visited Sissinghurst the year before last and thought it wonderful. I have greatly enjoyed revisiting it in my head thanks to this lovely article. –  Tim riley  talk   12:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Tim - first off delighted you enjoyed it. We're quite pleased with how it's developed. It's a gorgeous place with a fascinating history and deserves a decent article. Second, thanks so much for the review. Really helpful as ever and I've accepted everything with the three exceptions that I've noted above. As you're well aware, I can barely tell an Iceberg Rose from an Iceberg lettuce, so I'm left the horticultural queries to the expert. Thanks again and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

SC
More to come later (I have to proof read my daughter's dissertation first), but there are a couple of errors on the citations. The sources show Brown 1982, 1085 and 1988; there are several error messages where Brown 1990 and 1994 are being quoted. Ditto Glendinning: 2005 in the sources and errors showing where Glendinning 1983 is in the sfn code. Back as soon as I can - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks. These are my errors which I suspect relate to edition dates. I’ll check ‘em out. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And thank you for MOS-ifying the dashes, particularly because I told KJP1 the wrong thing, making it my fault rather than his. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for catch. I think sorted now. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Nearly - one left: FN192 - Brown 1990, p. 76. That's the only one remaining. I should be in a position to start the proper review tomorrow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Damn things! Many thanks. Look forward to further comments. On a totally unrelated point, I see List of Scheduled Monuments in Monmouthshire uses the SAM number column as a dual-purpose column to include the reference. I wonder if I could just rename the HB No column in Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire and use it in the same way? KJP1 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

First batch. No major red flags so far, and the following are nit-picky suggestions, rather than anything more problematic. Nicely readable so far, and a good balance between an overview and detail.


 * Early history
 * "de Saxinherst family, followed by the de Berhams": are there any dates or historical periods?
 * "Nigel Nicolson's son, Adam": we don't need "Nigel"
 * ✅ - done and done.


 * Rise, decline
 * I'd link Kent too (I know it's linked in the lead, a little above, but 'lead + 1' is allowable, and some will skip the summary to get into the meat of the article)
 * - Left.


 * Building a garden
 * "to their sons Ben and Nigel" You've already linked Nigel
 * ✅ - done.


 * National Trust
 * Why is the title "National Trust: 1968", but the opening sentence tells us they took over in '67?
 * "Anne Scott-James, author" –> "Anne Scott-James, the author"
 * "As of 2018": technically in BrEng this should be "As at 2018"
 * ✅ - Done the first two, Tryptofish has picked up the third.


 * Adam Nicolson
 * "Adam Nicolson, Nigel Nicolson's son" -> "Adam Nicolson, Nigel's son"
 * ✅ - done.

Done to the start of "Architecture". More shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of the first batch, I'll leave most of it to KJP1, but I fixed "As of" to "As at", because it is within a rather complex template that I had added. (The Brits really say "as at"? That's a new one to me!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Second batch:
 * Priest's House
 * "the NHLE listing". I know the full name is in a footnote, but it would be worth using the full name of the National Heritage List for England here too.
 * ✅ - done.


 * Gardens
 * "Long Barn": this is the third link for this in the article
 * "the first male head gardener since John Vass and Ronald Platt in the 1950s" can be trimmed to "the first male head gardener since the 1950s"
 * "Nicolson emphasising that" -> "Nicolson emphasised that"
 * ✅. All three, with a punctuation adjustment for the third. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * White Garden
 * "Planned before the war" – I don't think we need the link here.
 * ✅. I do however have a feeling that a future reviewer may ask "which one?". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Roses
 * "However, ..." There is often way too much fuss of "however" being used at the start of a sentence, but there are a few at FAC that will blow metaphorical gaskets as seeing it at the start of a paragraph! It can be removed without any adverse impact.
 * In the same sentence, I'd tweak slightly to clarify "The focus of Sissinghurst's collection"
 * ✅. However {, I moved the "however" to within the sentence, to clarify the difference between old and new roses, and I called it Sackville-West's collection, because she did the collecting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "Sackville-West did purchase" -> "Sackville-West purchased"
 * ✅. Except that I used "nonetheless" because she had dug up and discarded the rose named after her mother. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

That's it from me. A lovely article and a pleasure to read. I shall make a special effort to get there at some point this year, so well you have described it. Please let me know when you go to FAC, and please ping me if you need any clarification or further input from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words and for the thoughtful and helpful review. Of the second batch, I'll leave the Priest's House to KJP1, but all the subsequent ones are for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Schrocat - thanks again for the review. Most helpful and I've actioned those Tryptofish hasn't already covered. It is a gorgeous place and you won't regret a visit. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)