| Revision as of 07:50, 31 May 2019 editAnna Roy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,130 edits →Commas: ok← Previous edit |
Revision as of 01:52, 26 June 2019 edit undoAnna Roy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,130 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not on WP much these days. |
|
I'm not on WP much these days. |
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've done some expansion of this which may whet your appetite. All the best. ] (]) 17:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::Great. I was there in the summer. Such a gorgeous place. Just a note that edit summaries of changes help all us other editors so much - enabling us to see quickly how the article develops and make head and tail of changes. Also, as far as I know, all images on WP are still right aligned by default, unless it's a pic of a face looking right, in which case it's placed on the left. I hope that helps. Best wishes <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 17:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Glad you liked it. I know I can be poor on edit summaries; my overall average isn't bad, but when I'm doing a major re-write, I struggle to remember. As to images, not sure I'd agree that all aligned right would be best, or is a requirement. Would it not be a little repetitive? But still playing around. Best regards. ] (]) 17:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::] it's a good idea as some browsers process left and right aligned images differently. I think it makes it easy for the reader to scan as the eye knows where the images will be. I always place images well away from a heading else the formatting gets all odd. But I'm not much on WP because I get caught up with such infinite considerations and it gives me a headache. It's great you are adding content. Thanks for that. Best wishes <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 18:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::And we're now at FAC, here, ]. If you had the time to comment, your thoughts would be very much appreciated. ] (]) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
Lordy, you have done a lot of work. It seems the team did great work together. The article is beautifully written and very thorough. I had a few thoughts to offer; no biggies, but things to consider, perhaps; in no particular order. |
|
|
* I had read that Long Barn was Vita's first major garden and there she did a lot of experimentation, taking deep lessons she applied at SGC. So it could be said that Long Barn was a major inspiration for SGC - and hence they have a strong connection. |
|
|
* There seems to a strong and clear dynamic between Vita and her husband, whereby she had all the money and the creative vision and he was a broke, minor diplomat. All the money for SCG came from her, as you mention, but the power/aristo differential was always present. |
|
|
*Vita took up writing her ''Observer'' column because the couple were broke. As I have read, it was specifically this column that caught the public imagination and lead to miles of traffic jams on local roads. It might be good to give a scale of the garden's wild fame at its peak. |
|
|
*I was struck by the garden design with "vertical axes". Lol. I suspect some readers might take the phrase the wrong way, though I love the medieval idea. ⚒ |
|
|
*As a rose lover I am always hearing that above all roses. (I have planted them in my garden in honour of her). . It might be churlish not to mention the docteur. |
|
|
*Re the National Trust, did the couple originally plan to leave a significant 'endowment' with the house? The article suggests so. I would be surprised. |
|
|
*Lastly, the article section is a slightly clunky para, that contrasts with the rest of the flowing prose. Two very long sentences with various subclauses, could be smoothed out. |
|
|
|
|
|
I hope that's of help. You have researched the house and garden much more me so I'll leave consideration of the points with you. Most of the points are ref'd in Vita's article, I think. Congratulations and best wishes <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Wonderful suggestions. Replied more fully on my Talkpage. Best. ] (]) 23:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Now FA! I hope the final result is pleasing and thank you so much for your input which greatly improved the article. All the very best and take care. ] (]) 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rossettis and Ms Rich == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hello, I saw that there was (and is) the link to Dante Gabriel but I've put a clarification mark because I wasn't sure which of the Rossettis *the source* meant. I've found no mention of any Rossetti in the work cited (). I insist that a clarification is needed. Cheers, ] (]) 01:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::If you have checked the source, fair enough. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 02:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Commas == |
|
|
|
|
|
FYI: ] and this more recent one that sadly degenerated much further: {{Slink|WT:MOS|Commas}}. <span style="color:red">—](])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sigh. Surely there is so much more useful stuff to do out there than adding random introductory commas everywhere. And more important things to do in the world than get irritated by commas. Mental note to self. Ho hum. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 19:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The only thing people seem to be able to get together on is not to give any guidance in MoS, use whatever style you want when writing or significantly editing prose, hopefully in alignment with the rest of the article, and don't edit an article just to add/remove contentious use cases like those. It seems like one is welcome to change the style as long as "paying the toll" of substantially improving the article at the same time. <span style="color:red">—](])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Fair enough. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">] (])</span> 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
