Jump to content

Talk:Stowe Gardens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section: Enlightenment politics

[edit]

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:

  • "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."

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)[reply]

Move to article space

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Temple of British Worthies (front)
Temple of British Worthies (front)
  • ... that the tomb of a greyhound called Signor Fido lies behind the Temple of British Worthies (pictured) at Stowe Gardens? Source: "By 1734 the niche at the back of the Temple of British Worthies housed a long inscription to a pious Italian, Signor Fido, who had come to England and in his old age had retired to house of a clergyman in the country (perhaps Rev. Conway Rand of Stowe). This faithful friend, agreeable companion and loving husband was, according to the last line, a grey-hound."

    Bevington, Michael (1994). Stowe: The Garden and the Park. Capability Books. pp.93-94
    • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Reina Scully
    • Comment: The page was created as part of a paid pilot for the National Trust, and its content was split from the Stowe House page, according to a previous talk page discussion. The source is not available online, but I can email my pdf to a reviewer.

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 14:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Lajmmoore, this is an interesting article, but unfortunately it does not qualify as a new article, because its text was spun off from a pre-existing article (see WP:DYKCRIT). DYK has a lot of small print, so I would recommend rereading WP:DYK. TSventon (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks TSventon, I had looked for terms like "article splitting" in the rules, not the more generic wording. Never mind. If it became promoted to GA, would/could it be eligible? Many thanks for taking the time Lajmmoore (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lajmmoore: Hmmm. While there's no rule specifically against that, I would probably IAR decline any article that was GA nommed immediately after its split. But if the split weighs in at, say, C-class, and is then improved to GA with original work, that's totally fine. Alternatively, the article can be 5x expanded with original work, but I doubt that's in the question. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:

(
)
Temple of British Worthies
Temple of British Worthies

Improved to Good Article status by Lajmmoore (talk) and KJP1 (talk). Nominated by Lajmmoore (talk) at 13:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stowe Gardens, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Working towards a GA nomination

[edit]

Points to consider when working to move the page to GA status, please add to them:

Stowe Gardens
Topic Notes Sources Complete?
Well written? GA criteria 1 - Green tickY
Verifiable GA criteria 2 Green tickY
Addresses main aspects GA criteria 3 Green tickY
Neutral GA criteria 4 - Green tickY
Stable? GA criteria 5 - Green tickY
Illustrated GA criteria 6 too many??? Green tickY
Politics & Stowe More content of politics and Stowe is already identified as a gap Added paragraphs, based on content above, but with additional referencing Green tickY
Plant schemes & Stowe Content on the importance of green space - not just buildings needed in article Added paragraph - would appreciate feedback if it feels in the right place Green tickY

What do you think to this as a start @KJP1:? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: Green tickY}
  • Masses of white space - this isn’t my area of expertise, and if it’s not yours either, we may need to seek advice. Green tickY
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
added ticks for clarity Lajmmoore (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additions to complete the preparation work for GA review Lajmmoore (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw

[edit]

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)[reply]

Superscript numbers

[edit]

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)[reply]

Hello @Murgatroyd49 - do you mean when it looks like this: "... to gain admittance to the property.[1]: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Glad to be of help Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stowe Gardens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

Green tickY Comments

[edit]
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickY Punning reference: the motto is clearly punning, but can one speak of physical installations as such? Maybe reword a little.
  • Green tickY "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.
  • Green tickY "Capability Brown, all made" - remove the comma.
  • Green tickY Lancelot 'Capability' Brown - not sure why the "Lancelot" and the scare quotes here at 2nd mention, nor the overlink.
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickY 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]
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickYThere 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).
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]
  • Green tickYThat 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

[edit]
  • 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.
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickY 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.
  • Green tickY 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

[edit]
  • ? [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.
  • Green tickY [184], an encyclopedia, should name the applicable entry, presumably with the word "Stowe" in it somewhere.
  • Green tickY [189] does not seem to be fully described with respect to Stowe.
  • Green tickY [194] "Museum, Victoria and Albert". Shome short of mishtake, shurely, Mr and Mrs Museum? (Maybe link it, too)
  • Green tickY [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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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.

possible?
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

[edit]

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]

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.

Did you know nomination 2

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Temple of British Worthies (front)
Temple of British Worthies (front)

Improved to Good Article status by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stowe Gardens 2; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • @Lajmmoore: Improved to good article status. 98.4% match for copyright violations. I think someone needs to have a look and determine if this is a mirror or copy pasted. The image is clear and has the correct license and FOP exists in the image location. The hook is cited and interesting. Hold for now until CC is determined. Bruxton (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review Bruxton, just to add for context the Stowe Gardens page was initially a split from the Stowe House page. I moved the content from there in good faith. In terms of the copyvio, the VIPA page seems to me to be mirroring the content when it was on the Stowe House page originally? This link suggests that the page was first archived by Google in May 2015 & this link is the page in March 2015. If you compare the two, the content on the Stowe House page, under the subheading Stowe Landscape Gardens seems to be what the VIPA page is based on. I'd be really pleased if another pair of eyes could take a look at it to confirm Lajmmoore (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
& a further note, at the request of TSventon (which I should have originally put in the nomination), is that working on the Stowe Gardens page and submitting a DYK nomination was part of a paid pilot scheme for the National Trust. There's more detail on this here. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for the opinion @Theleekycauldron:! I moved the green tick. Bruxton (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :4 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stowe_Gardens&oldid=1205348755"