Talk:Square foot gardening

message: :Image:Square Foot Gardening Book Cover.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Square Foot Gardening Book Cover.png

message: The use of peat moss is questionable as it is not good sustainable practice. See also under peat moss. 202.82.143.78 03:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: an open-bottomed box to contain a finite amount of soil"Finite" is not the same as "small", which is what the writer  probably meant.--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite soil? 

message: I see that we have "Benefits of Square Foot Gardening" but nothing on the downsides. This article would benefit from more information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chippothenut (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: you're right that criticisms are noticeable by their absence. But I think that may be a function of a deeper problem, namely that square foot gardening is barely enough of a concept to merit an encyclopedia page. In other words, this article is struggling to meet WP:NOTABILITY. It's a bit like having an article on "Sharp Pencils", which contained no criticism of keeping the things sharp. As far as I can see, the best thing would be to delete the thing completely, but I'm not going to propose that at this point. Thomask0 (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too one sided 

message: The caption says,
A basic, 4x4, 16-unit "square-foot garden."
I agree that 4x4=16, but the captioned animation seems to disagree in some of the frames. Can we please just have a static image of the 4x4 thing? It's just irritating and the animation has no apparent benefit. 220.241.144.250 (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baffling animated GIF 

message: Lose the irrelevant photos.
How is the first photo in the article a square foot garden?
:Replaced with another which should be more representative. Thomask0 (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing details 

message: As it stands, this article seems to be almost as much about Mel Bartholomew as about the gardening method.  With 28 mentions of "Bartholomew", and three out of five "External links" being to sites by or about him (and one of the other two pointing to an organization of which he is a part) it reads too much like an advertisement for him and his website and book. 
Fixing this should start with the lead which is particularly problematic. It would improve things if only the first section was preserved; sure, with the final sentence referring to Bartholomew coining the phrase (although it would be good if that assertion had an RS since it's not obviously verifiable), but without the link to his book. The next lead section entitled "Mel Bartholomew" doesn't belong in the lead at all. If Mel really is that significant he probably does merit a section, but only a single section (and again, an RS would be nice) and it needs to respect weight considerations.  The last lead section, "Lawn to Garden" could probably be deleted entirely. It reads like an exhortation or set of instructions and doesn't add anything to this as an encyclopedia article.
Thoughts?
Thomask0 (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I fully support the good works you have done in making this a more acceptable article but a merge into Raised-bed gardening would seem very sensible. This current article has a neologism as a title, it refers to a single person's idea  and is very US centric (who else still uses foot as a measurement). I would be happy for it to be simply merged now and a sub-set of this text be included under a new heading in Raised bed gardening. This article would then be a simple re-direct  Velella  Velella Talk   07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too biographical? 

message: If this article was pruned to retain only what actually pertains to square foot gardening it's doubtful enough of substance would remain so as to meet WP:Notable. For example, the following would be best removed:
* The section entitled "Square Foot and Raised Bed Gardening". It is actually about the benefits of raised beds, not division into small squares and so isn't relevant to the article
* Most of the biographical information about Mel Bartholomew. For example, it is of no relevance that Bartholomew retired to Long Island, led a community project, had "many travels", etc 
* Much of the section "Mel Bartholomew's synopsis", relying as it does on a single book (Bartholomew's). It's arguable that entire section is really just a review of the book.
* Several points that essentially are adverts for: Bartholomew's two books (the cover of one of which is shown as a photograph), a DVD, a TV series, and even a form of compost named "Mel's mix" 
* The subsections "Cover Crops" and "Urban Food Production", both of which are general gardening points and simply have nothing to do with the subject of the article
Thomask0 (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I fully support the good works you have done in making this a more acceptable article but a merge into Raised-bed gardening would seem very sensible. This current article has a neologism as a title, it refers to a single person's idea  and is very US centric (who else still uses foot as a measurement). I would be happy for it to be simply merged now and a sub-set of this text be included under a new heading in Raised bed gardening. This article would then be a simple re-direct  Velella  Velella Talk   07:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  And notability 

message: I did a cleanup and discovered that this article has no real sources. The first 2 citations are only sourcing that "Mel B made it popular"; the third citation only sources "large variety of crops in a small space also prevents plant diseases from spreading easily" (source doesn't even mention square foot gardening). That leaves the bulk of the article unsourced.
I went through the "Further reading" books and removed four that don't mention square foot gardening or similar techniques (sorry, but raised bed and small space gardening are related BUT NOT identical to square foot gardening method). One book (Cubed Foot Gardening) looks very promising as a source for this article. The other is Mel Bartholomew's book, which I suppose is a decent source for this technique (even though he invented it/named it). I suppose one could argue that Mel B's book(s) are primary source, but for simply describing the technique and not making extraordinary claims, I think it's an acceptable use. There are, however, other books describing the technique, too, and they should also be used.
I added 2 more images to illustrate "dividing methods". I swapped out the GIF for a static image (per talk page discussion) and added a better caption.
Shortened the short description to less than 40 characters (per guidelines) and re-tagged the article after someone inappropriately removed the 2012 tag which was never resolved. The new tag has links for finding web articles, newspaper articles, books and google scholar results. I checked, and there are good results for all of the categories of sources. So use those links liberally.
It's about time this article got properly cited.
   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  20:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No real sources