Talk:Painshill

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Referencing style

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)[reply]

Personally, I would, though of course other improvements are welcome. Johnbod (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kent

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)[reply]

p.s. It's easily GA. You could go peer review and FAC as an alternative. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]