Talk:Royal Oak, Frindsbury/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 10:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments & Feedback
Version of article reviewed: here


 * Unsuitable use of commas after "and" in various parts
 * ✅ (Please check, though, as I'm not sure I completely understand this point)

Lead: Overall, the lead feels a bit slim with no introduction/mention to the notable architecture or layout. Lead sections should try and introduce sub-sections in a condensed fashion.
 * Could put the listed pub status immediately after name, rather than in between the two location descriptions (i.e. move "is a Grade II-listed.." after "The Royal Oak") so it flows better
 * "The pub was sold by Enterprise Inns" - this should be linked in preference to the link in History section as more people will typically only ever read a lead section
 * Could expand on "features in a BBC magazine in future of UK pubs" - what did it say the future is and why is it relevant to this article? Awkward standalone sentence that feels like it's been bolted on in haste. Potentially could form a new section on the pub's future?
 * ✅ - incorporated into the "Proposed redevelopment and listing" section.
 * Could expand on "features in a BBC magazine in future of UK pubs" - what did it say the future is and why is it relevant to this article? Awkward standalone sentence that feels like it's been bolted on in haste. Potentially could form a new section on the pub's future?
 * ✅ - incorporated into the "Proposed redevelopment and listing" section.
 * ✅ - although I'll come back to this again to see if it can be expanded further.

History:
 * "the building was likely first built" - "likely" sounds awkward. Maybe reword or add text before to explain the date is uncertain due to lack of records and this is the best estimate available
 * "given the layout of the rectangular lobby entrance and the chamfered beams, and had a timbered frame" - could one or both of the "ands" be removed/changed to flow better?
 * "By 1754 it was in use as a public house." - could this be integrated into the previous sentence rather than standalone?
 * "Melville's Directory" doesn't link anywhere and link should be removed
 * ❌ - from what I can see through Google, this looks like it's a notable historic document that could well have its own Wikipedia article, hence this intentional redlink.
 * I'll let that pass as per WP:RED, even though I'm personally not a fan. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the same subject, you have red-linked Joe O’Donnell, yet there is already a disambig page by this name, in what appears to be using a different format apostrophe. If you want to red-link this, consider a more specific title using the type of apostrophe used on the disambig page for consistency. Personally, I wouldn't red-link this as this time. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the Joe O'Donnell redlink. Types of apostrophes shouldn't matter, though. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll let that pass as per WP:RED, even though I'm personally not a fan. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * On the same subject, you have red-linked Joe O’Donnell, yet there is already a disambig page by this name, in what appears to be using a different format apostrophe. If you want to red-link this, consider a more specific title using the type of apostrophe used on the disambig page for consistency. Personally, I wouldn't red-link this as this time. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've removed the Joe O'Donnell redlink. Types of apostrophes shouldn't matter, though. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "The tile roof has weatherboarded gables." - this could be integrated in the exterior section that already mentions the roof
 * "The main part of the building is two storeys high, with an attic and cellar." - should this be in Architecture section instead?
 * "It was possibly named after the 17th century warship" - this is too uncertain for an article of potential GA status. The ref says it is "one theory" but doesn't back this up with anything, other than sharing a name. The way this is written makes it sound more sure, which is inaccurate.
 * "local rumours say" - use of "rumours" is a bit awkward which suggests something is made up. Maybe reword and add in why this is believed to be the case
 * I've reworded this as best I can, but I'm not sure if this is sufficient or if this paragraph should be pulled from the article. There are only the newspaper references for this statement, not any scientific paper or report from a heritage organisation that I can find.
 * I think it reads slightly better now than before, in as much as "one reported theory" is a bit less vague than "possibly" and "local people" is something that refers to what people genuinelly think, rather than the previous "local rumours". It's not ideal and if it were an FA nom it'd probably be subject to further scrutiny, but I think the changes suffice in this instance. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree - I wouldn't want to run this statement through FA without better references, but hopefully this is OK for GA. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also made a minor change to where the word "possibly" appeared and substituted for "best estimate"; again, would probably have a question mark on an FA nom but for GA I think it's fine. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree - I wouldn't want to run this statement through FA without better references, but hopefully this is OK for GA. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also made a minor change to where the word "possibly" appeared and substituted for "best estimate"; again, would probably have a question mark on an FA nom but for GA I think it's fine. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Overall, reasonably informative but could be sub-sectioned as it includes information on the founding, remodelling/improvements and later proposed redevelopment, all of which are distinct separate events. The proposed redevelopment/campaign could even be in a section entirely separate to history
 * "and again remodelled later in the 20th century" - this should form the start of the next sentence (e.g. Later in the 20th century, single-story extensions.."; you can then remove "in the 20th century" right at the end of that sentence, rather than repeat it
 * "The pub was closed and sold" - why was it closed? Lack of custom? Damage? Finances? This should also be made clear in the lead of its current closure status.
 * ✅ in expansion discussed below
 * ✅ in expansion discussed below
 * ✅ (subsectioned)

Architecture:
 * Exterior:
 * "The building was based on a timber frame structure" - why is this a standalone sentence? Should this be in exterior?
 * "Above the door is an oculus window" - 1) this would flow better being part of the previous sentence rather than standalone, 2) could you link "oculus window" to the corresponding wiki article?
 * 1) ❌: there are too many clauses here, so merging the sentences either makes it sound like the window is above all three bays, or that the door might have had glazing bars. I've merged it into the following sentence instead.
 * 2) ✅
 * There are 3 sentences relating to the windows, one of which is split with a semi-colon. This could be reworded into 2 sentences for better flow. Also "that to the" sounds awkward and could be reworded. Is there corresponding wiki articles for "segmented arch" and "timber sills" that could be linked?
 * ✅. Wikilinked as best as I can.
 * ✅. Wikilinked as best as I can.


 * Interior:
 * Are there any internal photos available or layouts of the interior to compliment the information?
 * ✅ - one internal photo has been added
 * The whole section reads a bit like an advertisement for a property sale, with excessive sentences that could be joined together and the section should be rewritten to sound more natural. Also looks rather minimal for a potential GA article.
 * I've reworded this a little, but I can't understand the advertisement comment - can you give some examples please? I agree that it's minimal, I'll expand it if I can find more info, but info on this is scarce in the available references.
 * This is the feeling I had when I read it - that I could have been reading an advert for the propery on sale, perhaps due to the short, brief sentences that may flow more naturally if combined; I still get that feeling when I read it now. It's not something that I would look to fail the nomination on per-se, but I feel some of those sentences could be linked together to make it seem more natural. It seems to be have been paraphrased from the reference, which is fine, but in the same format of short sentences which bothers me a bit. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking this through - but most sentences refer to a different part of the building, which are difficult to merge together while still making sense. The intention isn't to make the text sound like an article: the only available ref here is Historic England, who aren't involve in the sale of the building. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be me being overly pedantic, though I have taken four sentences and merged into two where they refer to a similar type of artictecture (timbers/beams and 2nd floor/attic). This wasn't strictly part of any of the GA criteria, but in my view a GA article should be striving as close towards FA as possible! Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Misc:
 * Is there any information on how the pub operated in contemporary times, perhaps as a new section? Example: ownership, awards, events, ales offered?
 * Any other similar pubs in the area (i.e. similar history, architecture etc)?
 * A section about the future would be useful, given it's current state of closure, campaign to save it and possible reopening
 * ❌ - I don't like having sections on the "future", since then the future happens and the section looks rather dated. ;-) So I'd prefer to leave this as "Proposed redevelopment and listing", if that's OK.
 * Future sections are only outdated if noone updates it, but creating a separate section as suggested but with a different header title would be fine (given it'd include the same information). Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My experience of late has been that people won't come along to update articles - which terrifies me. :-( How does the existing section look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking pretty much as I envisaged it should do when I made the suggestion :) Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion
Article broadly covers the founding of the pub, with an interesting history, albeit some of which seems uncertain or vague that needs clarifying. There is also an informative architectural section, though the exterior could be more comprehensive and interior could be enhanced. The article lacks any contemporary information and instead is focused on historical knowledge, with the exception of the recent saving campaign.

My concern is that many pub articles with a similar amount of information are rated as start class, or C as best and thus I think there needs to be broader information to warrant being GA. This may well be available amongst the web archives but in terms of bredth of coverage, there is not anything significant that sets it apart from other non-GA articles. GA articles will often be viewed as a benchmark against which other articles should strive towards, yet in it's current state I am not seeing how this is significantly broader than many other pub articles.

I am willing to give a week for improvements and enhancements to be made, though this could be extended if there is a clear ambition and evidence of improvements still ongoing once this time lapses.

Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the detailed feedback! I'm working through your points, and will respond to them individually as I do so. My main worry is that there isn't much more broader information accessible on this pub at the moment, so that may be the principle block to this article becoming GA right now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine - best thing initially is if you work through the suggested amendments and also see if you can find anything further to broaden it out a bit. If it were GA, i'd like to think it would have a bit more to it so as to act as a template for other similar articles looking to be improved to a higher standard (rather than having the same manner of content as others, as then there is little differentiation). Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tomorrow will be a week since I did the review, though only a handful of changes have thus far been made. Do you think you'll be looking to do the rest imminently? I can't determine the outcome suitably until I know as much as is feasible has been done. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will work through all of your very useful points, but I'm afraid it will probably be around the 22nd before I manage to finish them. I'm currently traveling, and am without my laptop, and the changes are too intricate to do by mobile. Is that ok? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing to work on the article, but I'm limited by the info available in suitable references. I've asked a few questions above that I hope you can have a look at. I'd like to ask for your honest opinion: is the article heading towards GA status, or should we hold off until more info on the building is published? Either way, I plan to continue improving the article as references permit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (Just seen your latest edit - thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I made a minor edit to some wording as per the thoughts noted above. I also only just noticed how you have organised the references; i've never seen an article before where the raw reference data is all together in one place and the in-line ones are purely transcluded; I am quite a fan! Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I feel this is close to GA now and would like to be promoting it very soon, however i'd just like to know if there is likely to be any expansion/additions on the following points: If there is anything on the above then it only needs to be brief (ideally at the very least, what caused it to close). Others I think would be nice, but not GA-necessary. Lets see if we can get this promoted soon :) Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the pub closed (we know how, but why did it get to that stage)
 * Information on how the pub operated in contemporary times (ownership, awards, events, offerings)
 * Any similar pubs in the area (i.e. similar history, architecture etc)?
 * I'll see what I can do, but I've been distracted by a few other things at the moment. I haven't seen anything available on your first two points, though. The third might be easier, but may risk WP:OR if not carefully done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can I ask for your advice on references? The planning documents for the redevelopment of the pub are available online, and contain some useful information (in the heritage statement, for example). Would that count as a sufficiently reliable source to be able to use it here? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well as an official document released in conjunction with a redevelopment proposal, it ranks to me as being at the upper end of reliability (unlike, say, social media or "fan/community" websites which themselves can be set up and written by anyone without being accountable to their contents). I think you could gain some useful information from that document and perhaps others in that repository too. You may even be able to double-source material when you know what you're referring to/searching for, unlike when you are going in to a search blind and unaware of what data you'll gather. It'll be interesting to see how you can further develop from that. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. It's likely to be one-sided due to the nature of the document, but I'll see what can be neutrally used from it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've done a preliminary expansion from these documents. I'll have another look through them tomorrow. The first point has been answered by these edits, but not so much the other two yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the expansion; I just compared the current version to that prior to the review and the difference is rather staggering. I suspect my 2nd point may well be troublesome so I won't be drawing a red line with regards to its inclusion or not determing the GA outcome. However, I will be giving it another read over given the additions are quite substantial, to ensure no niggles have crept in. Very good job so far though. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If it's OK, can I ping you again once I've gotten this article as far as I can again given the new sources, so I don't waste your time with extra read-throughs? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, as it's approaching a month since I initially did the review, i'd be wanting to look at finalising this asap, therefore i'll be looking to conclude the review within the next 1-3 days. If you have further expansion then please can you see if it can be incorporated soon? Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll work on this over this weekend, hopefully the article will be completed then (i.e., by end-of-GMT-day Sunday 5th Feb). Thanks for your patience! Mike Peel (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I think this is about as far as I can get the article at the current time. I don't think there's more that I can use from the planning permission documents. I'll keep an eye out for additional references and add them when I can, but this might be a good time for you to have another read through. BTW, I've also asked the 'Save the Royal Oak Pub, Frindsbury' campaign if they have any suggestions of additional info/refs/corrections, and if they have any pictures they're willing to share. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine Mike (and good call on seeing if the campaign group can/will make any photography contribution). Given the extent of the additions (which are admittedly considerably more extensive than I initially anticipated), it may take a little time for me to read-over again (and effectively do an entirely new review)! If there is anything minor that I can edit myself I will do and i'll only make further comment if I feel there is a quantity of further suggestions/amendments required that would not be appropriate for me to do myself. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sound good, thanks! Also, I should ping one of the earlier article editors, any comments? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, there is some more info that could be used in the ref added at to the objection letter by Joe O'Donnell / the campaign. However, I'm not sure whether this is a suitable ref to use per WP:RS. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. I've nothing useful to add.  I'm just a little concerned that the current planning battle takes up a disproportionate amount of space, particularly the new houses and charging point.  All in all though, well done.  BTW, have you any details on the vicarage that used to be opposite?  I've done quite a lot of work on All Saints' Church and have not picked up on this.  The fact that the ancient road leading down to the barn and hence to the Upnors is called "Parsonage Lane" makes me just a little suspicious that the story isn't clear.  Is it possible that there was a chapel of ease near here?  Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The planning debate does take up quite a bit of space - but ideally we'd have that level of info on the rest of the article, rather than just that bit. ;-) It can be trimmed if needed, though.
 * On the vicarage, says "the parsonage was built opposite the pub at quite a distance from the Norman church" - I'm assuming that is All Saints', but that may be erroneous. Also see, which talks about the "Old Vicarage', and shows a location that matches in with that of the pub (compare to the map on page 30 of ). Could the vicarage have been moved? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Also see Frindsbury - the last sentence of that article tallies with the refs above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mike, this is getting way off topic. I've replied on your talk page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Micro-review (#2)
- have given my thoughts below (moreso specific to the additions rather than exhaustive, though I am reminding myself this is a GA nom and not an FA nom)!

location: founding:
 * petrol station info - is this necessary?
 * ✅ I think it helps with the context. I've reworded the sentence to discuss the vicarage first. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "the" tudor cottage?
 * ✅ the "Tudor Cottage". ;-) That seems to be its name, see d:Q26374088. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've linked it to Listed buildings in Frindsbury. "Tudor Cottage" is the name on the listing. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "(the Georgian era)" in brackets looks odd; maybe > "put the build date during the Georgian era around the late 17th century.."
 * ^ This is also quite a long sentence (maybe use semi-colon to split or split into two separate sentences)
 * "killed in an collapse" > a collapse?
 * Do we need to mention all the historical maps years? If it was on a map in 1867 and 1972, then it stands to reason it would have been on all of those in between too. The next sentence about the name means the first 2 years could be kept, but the rest.. redundant?
 * ✅ How does this look now? I've left the other dates as a comment in case we want to add them back later. Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do we need to mention all the historical maps years? If it was on a map in 1867 and 1972, then it stands to reason it would have been on all of those in between too. The next sentence about the name means the first 2 years could be kept, but the rest.. redundant?
 * ✅ How does this look now? I've left the other dates as a comment in case we want to add them back later. Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

proposals:
 * "Theories for why this was include rising costs and administration requirements; a shift towards off-license sales and restaurants; legislation such as drink-drive laws and the smoking ban in England; and health concerns,[2] as well as beer tie issues." - really bad and inappropriate semi-colon usage. Separately, the sentence is about "theories", which to me falls into WP:CRYSTAL and I would question its inclusion
 * ✅ I've commented out this, and the next sentence - how does that look? Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "It was thought to be too far away" - bizarre start to a new sentence - maybe reword the whole thing so it sounds like a sentence in its own right, rather than half of another one
 * ^ This sentence and the following one leads up to noting the other pubs in the area. This was a topic I suggested you could include, which you have here, though maybe not placed in the best article section? It may be worth seeing if you can put it in the "Location" section, given it relates to "local" pubs relative to its location
 * "It then closed as a pub in 2015" - awkward standalone sentence
 * "led by Joe O’Donnell" - i'm sure he'd welcome the namecheck, but individually is he noteworthy for named mention? The campaign itself and info on the petition is sufficient in my view
 * ❌ Given that he is mentioned (and pictured) in nearly all of the news articles about the campaign, it seems to me that he's as equally notable for mentioning as the campaign. I'm not going to object if you really want to remove his name though. Mike Peel (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "around twice the price" - I am confused, as previously it notes the pub sold "for £275,000 along with £55,000 VAT" (was the VAT on top, or inclusive? If VAT inclusive then the £450,000 makes sense, but this needs to be clear)
 * ✅ In both cases it's price plus VAT. The factor of two came from the Kent_30Jan17 ref - but I think that's trying to take into account the price of the garden, which isn't included in the higher price. I've reworded and clarified this now. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "an charging station" > a charging station
 * "However, campaigners criticised the absence of plans to preserve some historic features; the partial demolition of the building; and the proximity of the new buildings." - more awful semi-colon usage
 * "an charging station" > a charging station
 * "However, campaigners criticised the absence of plans to preserve some historic features; the partial demolition of the building; and the proximity of the new buildings." - more awful semi-colon usage
 * "However, campaigners criticised the absence of plans to preserve some historic features; the partial demolition of the building; and the proximity of the new buildings." - more awful semi-colon usage

I have some similar reservations as Martin of Sheffield, in that the extent of info on the redevelopment/saving proposals seem to be out of proportion with the actual history of the building and its essential features. I think it's a little too specific in parts and could be condensed slightly.
 * I've also commented out some of these items, how does that look? Mike Peel (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMHO it's much better. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

As a separate consideration, is this section now totally suitable as part of the history parent section? It seems to be that it could be moved to an entirely new section (or at the very least, info on the saving if you want to keep the original sale stuff in the "history" parent section).
 * I'm not sure. I think it still fits in reasonably well with the history section, and I'm not sure what other (new) section it could be moved into - any suggestions? Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

exterior:
 * "probably in the early 19th century" - not sure repeating speculation is the best idea (its mention on what seems to otherwise be a RS doesn't itself justify the speculation as reliable)
 * ✅ by condensing the sentence. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe move one of the exterior photos to be located in this section (it would be more appropriate as this section specifically discusses the external features).
 * See below

interior:
 * Move the inside photo further down in to this section
 * I took the liberty of drawing from scratch the ground floor layout, based accurately on the layout from the planning documents from Medway Council. It's within the commons category repository. Take a look and see if you think it can be included.
 * Many thanks for the drawing - that's great, and I've now added it to the article! I'm not sure about the image flow, though - I have quite a wide monitor, and the images now intrude into the references section. That's before repositioning the exterior and interior photo pictures, which makes it a lot worse. As a radical suggestion, how about we move the 'Architecture' section to above the 'History' section? It would then let the images flow down the side of the 'History' section on wide monitors, while appearing in the right sections on narrower monitors. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

refs:
 * All the Medway Council pdfs are showing as dead/broken/incorrect - these need to be fixed as it's less convenient to check the authenticity of the article content where they refer to these documents
 * This is very odd: the PDFs don't work for me until I visit the Medway Council page, and then they start working again. I guess that they are using some code that breaks direct links to the documents. If you load and then try accessing the PDFs, do the links start working for you? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In case it helps, I've been saving PDFs of all of the references with filenames matching the reference tags: if they would be useful then you can download a zip file of them from . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I picked up on enough things to warrant a specific micro-review rather than making the additions myself. There is some very minor grammar niggles but I'll sort them when it's good for GA (which should be very soon). The additions are very beneficial, if perhaps a little waffling in parts, though its broadness is now considerably improved and my earlier reservations about it not being able to establish itself sufficiently enough to warrant GA have been alleviated somewhat. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll work through these as soon as I can. Again it may be this coming weekend before I'll manage to get through them all. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * All done now, hopefully! Some questions are inline above. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, I see what you mean by the alignment going a bit off on widescreen (which I replicated by extending the browser across multiple monitors). Perhaps you could consider doing one of two things that could workaround this issue:
 * Use a

tag at the end of the text to prevent the next section starting before all previous elements have been processed
 * or
 * Move the location section to the end of the page; having read your suggestion, I believe the History section should not come last and a more appropriate workaround may be to move Location section instead
 * Also with regards to the references - my concern was for readers who may want to look at the refs themselves and find they're unable to do so. I am not sure if the council website changes the name and location of the files, which would be rather bizarre, but if so then perhaps instead you could link to the download area on the council website, filtered for the appropriate type of document? For instance, this link should filter for "Supporting Documents" only and would mean a reader could easily find what they're looking for (without worrying about broken links), but this is just a thought. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It would seem that link on a different computer doesn't filter for the specific type of documents but does at least direct to the page where all the documents can be found. This would be an improvement from a totally dead link, despite not being wholly ideal. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now added the links to the document lists (hopefully using the right parameter in the cite template). I've also rejigged the positions of the pictures. I don't like the idea of having the location section at the end, as I think it sets up useful context before going into the history/architecture sections. Instead, I've removed the photo showing the inside, since it's rather low quality (taken through glass, blurry), and I think the layout drawing gives more useful information. It seems to work OK on my wide screen as well as narrower screens now. I think that's everything? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am happy with those changes and indeed everything you have done to improve this article significantly from the original one I reviewed way back.. 5 weeks ago! I wouldn't then have imagined it'd take over a month to get to this stage, nor that the GA review could itself be a nominee for the longest and most discussed GA nomination that I have encounted ;) I am happy to pass this, though I am sure you will continue to build it up as the situation develops in the future. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for how long this has taken! And thank you for all of your constructive feedback throughout! Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)