# Talk:Painshill

I would like to do some work on this article over the next few weeks. Principally, I would like to improve the coverage of the post-1980 restoration work, tighten up the remainder of the text and improve the referencing.  Per WP:CITEVAR, would anyone object if I convert the references to use template:sfn?
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I would [object], though of course other improvements are welcome. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Support, this should certainly be done as the current arrangement is hard work for everyone, nom, reviewer, ordinary readers, and any editor who wants to verify anything. The change to sfn is quite minor in terms of appearance, just a step-change improvement in terms of navigability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Support - I appreciate sfn isn’t for everyone, including a number of editors whose contributions I highly value, as here. But, for me, it is the clearest style, for editors and users. I also feel that the editor/s who have contributed the most to the article should have the call, so would support this. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
In addition, the referencing would make much more sense with the multiply-used sources, like the Symes books, listed separately as 'Sources'. At the moment readers need to hunt through over 200 references-to-sources in a single 'References' list to find the actual sources, which is frankly undesirable. This would be a natural accompaniment to using sfn (the sfns in 'References', their linked citations written out in full in 'Sources'), but it would equally well be an improvement even if sfns are not used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

My copy of The English Garden by Ralph Dutton confidently ascribes the design of Painshill to William Kent. (p=84, second edition 1950). But Dutton was writing in the 1930s, and it appears that few today think Kent responsible. Though I do see Clive Aslet gives him a passing mention in relation to Hamilton's friendship with Cobham. I wonder if it's worth a footnote?
I'll take a more detailed look at the article, and rummage through my sources, to see if anything else might warrant a mention. KJP1 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

p.s. It's easily GA. You could go peer review and FAC as an alternative. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @KJP1: I have added a note in this diff. I am a little wary of Dutton's attribution of the design of Painshill to Kent. Whilst I may have missed the blindingly obvious, I don't remember seeing anyone else make the same link. A lot of detailed research into the history and design of Painshill was carried out in the early 1980s (a good 30 years after Dutton was writing) and, had this uncovered a substantive connection between Kent and Painshill, I am sure it would have been reported in the subsequent literature. I'd also note that Kent died in 1748, which is before the vast majority of the follies were constructed. Please let me know your thoughts. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that’s fine. I agree that the modern sources clearly don’t follow Dutton but it is interesting - to me at least! - that a respected writer thought this in the 1930s. On the wider article, I was going to go through and add a few comments, but then I thought I could as well do this at GAN. If you let me know when you nominate it, I’ll pick it up. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @KJP1: I have asked another editor for their input, but they are not available until early August, so I will wait for their feedback. Thanks for the offer to review at GAN. I will certainly ping you when I nominate. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)