Talk:Olive Fitzhardinge

Untitled

Taking your points in turn: It may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. It needs to be more tightly organised and, as you can see, it is a work in progress. Be patient. It is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. There is no substantial literature on this subject. Her standing itself is controversial and needs to be established. That is why there are so many period quotes. I can slim them down but removing them would remove substance. There's also a lot of stuff there for the moment because it's not known why she did things, e.g. moved to the country. Beyond that, I just don't care for fake objectivity. Its introduction may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines. I agree. I've rewritten it twice and will do so again so that it fits what follows. But what follows is currently changing all the time. Be patient. Its neutrality is disputed. See above. It contains too many or too lengthy of quotations for an encyclopedic entry. I sort of agree. Some of the quotes can be made into indirect ones plus references. Wait and watch. And thank you for your trouble. Erictimewell (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started to do as I said. Emphasis is greater on the objective history of taste in relation to her career. At least one more group of quotes ('Lady Edgeworth David') is still to go into the References bin. Erictimewell (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done all the restructuring I think is required. I'm going to sleep on the tone and style of the material for a while before altering them further. Erictimewell (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still reflecting on the tone and style of this piece. Meanwhile, it is the only extended prose treatment of the subject: it is itself the main reference. Some of the loose ends about why people moved where can be tied up by checking the NSW phone directories for the 1930s, which I will do next month. I don't know the etiquette of this, but at the beginning of April I intend to remove the outdated comments on the article's shortcomings, unless told otherwise. Erictimewell (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Article issues

Ericteimwell you've created a great piece here. As I noted when adding the maintenance tags to the article there are some clear issues with it. Firstly, the article particularly the rose breeding section sounds a little like an essay. In it you have included statements that are not adequately supported by referenced sources. Such as "public acceptance of Olive Fitzhardinge's roses was coloured by her position as a society figure." You haven't mentioned previously that she was a "society figure" and there are no sources to back that up and thence the public acceptance of her roses was coloured by this is not supported by sources either. Without sources the text sounds like original research.

I understand that you are not new to Wikipedia but I will still refer you information sources on how to write and edit articles. Have look at information on citing sources and about "your first article".

Your comment "There is no substantial literature on this subject" raises an issue that I haven't tagged the article for and that is subject notability. I had suspicions earlier but your admission appears to have confirmed it. The article is light on reliable sources sufficient to write a worthwhile article. You may feel very strongly that Ms Fitzhardinge deserves an article but there needs to be a reasonable amount already published about her (and not just her roses) upon which a reasonable length article can be written. This will need to be addressed and in the short term you could just describe the types of sources and how much was written about her. Leave this information here on the talk page until you get things sorted. If no adequate reliable sources can be found in the medium term on the subject the usual outcome is article deletion. Make sure you read the link on notability and understand the requirements. If it is still not clear, ask.

Thanks for looking at the lead section. I fear your changes have made things worse. "Rose lovers agree on the high value of her three surviving roses" - screams for supporting sources. The phrase "Rose lovers agree" is an example of what is known as weasel words. You will need to identify who agrees on the high value of her roses using reliable sources. Needs lots more work.

The protocol for removing maintenance tags is that they can and should be removed when the issues identified have been rectified. There is no time limit.

The blocks of quoted text quite rightly have been moved to the citation footnotes. Could you look at reducing the length of some of the extracts? All that is needed is that which supports the claims made in the article text. Her father's obit is too long and I am not sure what claim it is actually supporting.

How would a "Sydney telephone directory" support; "In 1936 or 1937 Olive Fitzhardinge and her husband moved to a property at Mandurama on the Central Tablelands of NSW."? Or that "Fitzhardinge's roses were hybrid teas, probably bred between 1930 and 1937, the last to be registered appearing in 1939."?

A priority would be to establish notability. Bleakcomb (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bleakcomb, I've "created a great piece here" but it may need deletion and its subject lacks notability. Nevertheless you go to great trouble to indicate its faults in excellent prose. As usual, the best way to respond to most of the criticisms is to adjust the article. You won't be surprised to learn that the account of Mrs Fitzhardinge's daughter's wedding which names the dedicatees of half her roses comes from the society pages and that it occurs there because she is a society figure: that is why the event is reported in the first place. I need to make more explicit that the press reports themselves show their awareness of her being a Lady, though I think you will agree that it is not for such an article to analyse 1930s Anglo attitudes. Similarly I need to make explicit that rose lovers' interest in Mrs Fitzhardinge is shown by the presence of her roses in all the national collections: weasel plants rather than weasel words. In general I have shifted the emphasis of the article to social attitudes to its protagonist.

I am happy to fillet Mr MacMaster's obituary. It shows many things claimed in the article, all the way from where she was brought up to the name of her sister. Why name the sister? Because her husband controlled stock breeding on huge tracts of the Australian countryside (see a later reference). But I admit I don't think redundancy in footnotes matters much when the material itself is so interesting. Perhaps that is one of my departures from enclycopedia style which must be corrected.

"How would a 'Sydney telephone directory' support: 'In 1936 or 1937 Olive Fitzhardinge and her husband moved to a property at Mandurama on the Central Tablelands of NSW.'? Or that 'Fitzhardinge's roses were hybrid teas, probably bred between 1930 and 1937, the last to be registered appearing in 1939.'?" Well, the Sydney directory for 1936 shows the Fitzhardinges at Warrawee. For 1937 it does not. Therefore they moved at that time or got tired of using the phone. That they moved to Mandurama comes from the Cox reference, but the directory will tell us if they already owned the Mandurama place. It will also tell us if their son was already living on it. All these details at present are sitting there in the article waiting to be connected. They are also bait for readers who know better to make the connections. In that way online encylopedias are unlike printed ones in my view. Descendants read my articles. All these details matter because no one knows why Mrs Fitzhardinge stopped breeding roses. How would the Sydney telephone directory show when Mrs Fitzhardinge's last rose was registered? I wouldn't have a clue.

I hope you will continue to read the article so patiently, critically and helpfully at least for another fortnight. After that I am sure we will both have better things to do. Erictimewell (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The introduction

We now have "She was the first Australian rose breeder to patent her work." Good and true. "Her surviving roses are held in Australian collections." True but it doesn't let the reader know that an Australian breeder in an Australian collection is a rarity. Not very important. "The names of her roses included family, friends and prominent people in Australian history." True but banal. Nearly every breeder does that sort of thing, so it conveys no information. "Her roses were popular for a short period until after the Second World War when the favoured styles of roses changed significantly." Sort of. Her roses got favourable press for ten years but no one knows about her sales. "After the Second World War … " is true. I'll fix this today. Perhaps it is too hard to say the story is about feminism, class, nationalism and taste in Sydney in the 1930s. Erictimewell (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article status on 1 May 2012

So in what current respects is this article in need of copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling; a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject; of disputed neutrality? Erictimewell (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Article status 4 April 2014

This article is now easily the best account of Fitzhardinge available. It now has reasonably complete rose photos but it lacks decent photos of the woman herself. (One press photo appeared in her entire lifetime.) The bibliography is now up to date, as is the list of places where her roses can be seen. Erictimewell (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)