Talk:Cressingham Gardens

Living Pesons Conformity with guidelines
Re phrased mentions of John Major and Ken Livingstone to conform to guidelines for living persons. These are the only living persons in the article. John15CM (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Improved citations
Made changes to improved citations. Citations changed from Municipal dreams on word press to Guardian, Lambeth Council, and Open City London. Please could wiki editors now identify what statements need better citation. John15CM (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Added citation to Historic England for evidence of status of listing application. 86.153.168.194 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize and shorten
pointed out article to long and navigation difficult.

Suggest new structure

Proposed Headings:

1.0 History

2.0 Architectural Significance

---2.1       Urban Design Innovations

---2.2       Design Failings

---2.3      Overall Successful Design for Council estate

3.0 Redevelopment Controversy

---3.1       Case for demolition and rebuilt

---3.2       Case for repair and refurbish

---3.3      Judicial Review

Is this better structure comments pleas. John15CM (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The changes of splitting opening into lead and context have solved the navigation prob. Current structure better than what is suggest above.

John15CM (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance Tags
I think they are redundant. The text is well written and flows and certainly is not to long if you are looking for the information. The references did rely to heavily on one source- but one has to be carefully in deciding about references. The fact that an item exists- can be taken from a shaky reference, to support a a POV then the reference needs to be rock solid. All that could have been pointed out here- this is an active article and changes are easily made with a little cooperation. I will leave this a few days- then zap the redundant tag. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think shortening the article would really be an improvement so the length tag is not needed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

POV
I'm aware that the potential demolition/redevelopment is controversial locally but I think some sections of this article cross the line from information to conjecture/opinion eg "sink estates", "The estate has been a proven success". Crookesmoor (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good to look at this again two years on. There are certainly opinions expressed here that do need to be supported by a reference.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)