Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sandringham House/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2018.

Sandringham House

 * Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Likened to a "golf-hotel at St Andrews or a station-hotel at Strathpeffer", Sandringham House has had a poor architectural press. But it holds some interest, as the private home of all the 20th century British monarchs, and the scene of the deaths of two of them. A Grade II* listed building, Sandringham is a modern rarity, a fully-functioning Victorian country house and estate surviving into the early 21st century. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Support and a few comments from Tim riley
Excellent piece, but in rereading the article I have spotted a few minor points that I ought to have raised at the peer review. (The heat and senility, you know.) Apologies for missing them earlier.
 * Info-box
 * "Built for Edward VII" – but you say it was built before he became king, so it was in fact built for the Prince of Wales, or, at pinch, Edward VII when Prince of Wales.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Edward VII
 * Palmerston is linked again here, having been linked in the previous para.
 * ✅ - Undone.


 * First para: still some inconsistency over "the Prince" or "the prince"
 * ✅ - Done, I hope.


 * "The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870, the only element…" – stronger stop than a comma required.
 * ✅ - Done, with a semi-colon.


 * George V
 * At PR I suggested restraint in capitalising, but you really can't deny Christmas its capital.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * George VI
 * "at 10.30p.m. He was discovered at 7.30 a.m." – inconsistent spacing.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Elizabeth II
 * Why link George VI here?
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Appreciation
 * "Royal family" or "Royal Family"? We have both here.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Gardens
 * If you're going to give Dighton Probyn his "Sir", you might do the same for Eric Savill, who got his K in 1955, so was Sir Eric at the time you mention him.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Alt text – lacking throughout.
 * ✅ - Now done.

That's all from me, I think. Happy to support. I'll do a source review if nobody else is forthcoming. –  Tim riley  talk   20:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Tim, it is, as ever, much appreciated. And no apologies are necessary. I'm sure your usual laser-like focus wandered as you slogged through yet another bloody, boring house! Particularly one as architecturally disappointing as this. I shall attend to all of the comments asap, particularly the alt text which I'm ashamed I omitted. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - Tim, first off, apologies for the delay in responding. Second, many thanks for the PR, which I should have acknowledged at the outset. Lastly, hope I've actioned all the above satisfactorily, except for the alt text which I'll get on to now. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Image review
Also suggest some serious work on citation formatting before someone gets around to reviewing that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Sandringham_eetkamer.JPG is quite blurry, any better-quality images available?
 * - Nikki, many thanks for the review. You're quite right, the dining room photo is of poor quality. Unfortunately, it is literally the only interior image I could find, either or here or on Geograph. I'm not actually at all sure I should even be using that one, as I think it was probably taken in contravention of the "No photos inside" rule that pertains at Sandringham House. And which accounts for the unavailability of any other images. If you think it would be better, I'll take it out. It's just a pity not to have any internal shots in an architecture article.
 * Re. the citation formatting, could you give me a hint. I've used my usual sfn and the citation bot isn't showing any obvious errors to me. Apologies if I'm being slow. KJP1 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a lot of issues with consistency in the full citations - accessdates of varying formats, variations in which parameters are used and which not even for sources from the same site, newspapers presented as publishers, random CS2 cite where most are CS1, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Shall see what I can do with these. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , - I'm hoping I've now made the formatting of the online sources consistent, but it's highly likely I've missed something. Very happy to address any outstanding issues during the Source review and thanks again for the pick-up. KJP1 (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review
I'll pick up the source review, but in view of Nikkimaria's comments, above, I'll leave it a day or two, to give KJP time to address those points before I start.  Tim riley  talk   08:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources cited appear reliable. Only one dodgy one: the link for ref 133 takes one to a wholly unrelated page.
 * Review
 * ✅ - odd. Replaced.

Otherwise, I note that ref 94 points to a self-published work, but the statement it covers is minor and uncontentious, and I don't propose to challenge it.
 * Indeed it is, but having bought it, I think it's reliable. He's a Rev. after all! KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Some minor points of formatting etc:
 * Views differ on whether one should add access dates as well as publication dates (where the latter are known), but I think you should be consistent whichever you go for:
 * "Appleton House". The Norwegian Royal Household. 5 March 2011" (ref 134)
 * but
 * "Home Office Circular 018/2007 (Trespass on protected sites)". GOV.UK. Home Office. 22 May 2007. Retrieved 8 August 2017 (ref 122).
 * The only other instance of publishing and retrieval dates both given is at ref 124.
 * ✅ - Done by removal in both cases to make consistent throughout.


 * Two slightly different references to the same site, viz: "The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 29 July 2018 and The History of Sandringham". The Sandringham Estate. Retrieved 2017-11-26 (refs 4 and 88). (The latter is also the only incidence of a yyyy-mm-dd date; all the other dates are consistently dd-mm-yyyy.)
 * ✅ - consolidated and made consistent thereby.


 * Ref 123 – I think the year is probably wrong. All other references to Mackworth-Young & Ransom give it as 1993.
 * ✅ - Oops. Now sorted.


 * Staff writers: I don't think I have ever seen the words "Staff writers" appearing in the Sources of any other article. Isn't it usual to comment them out for articles with no by-line? I don't say it's wrong to include them, but they look a bit strange. (Refs 67, 71, 79, 106, 121 and 137–140)
 * ✅ - I've never done this before, but noticed the option was there so used it! Can never resist pressing a shiny new button. Now removed.


 * Titles of authors: Not sure why Roy Strong gets his K in the References, but Alan Lascelles, Harold Nicolson and Nikolaus Pevsner don't in the Sources.
 * ✅ - de-gonged Roy for consistency.


 * The royal author is "Duke of Windsor" in the References (124), but "Windsor, the Duke of" in the Sources.
 * ✅ - Hope I've got your meaning here?


 * Sources: "Cassell and Company" – two minor points: everywhere else in your sources – e.g. Chatto & Windus – you use an ampersand rather than "and"; and elsewhere you shorten Company to Co.
 * ✅ - Done and done.


 * Publishers – links: not sure it's necessary or particularly helpful to readers to link the names of publishing houses, but if you are going to do so you might add one for Thames & Hudson.
 * ✅ - but perhaps not in the way you'd prefer!


 * American publishers: New Haven USA but Connecticut US. I understand the latter is preferred.
 * ✅ - Done.

That's all I can find. –  Tim riley  talk   20:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Tim, many thanks and only sorry I left more than I would have liked undone. Shall set to tomorrow. All best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks for catching these and I hope/think I've addressed them all. Now I just need to try to drum up a little more interest in the grim old house! Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Signing off source review. All is now right as far as I can see.  Tim riley  talk   20:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from Giano
This seems a well written and informative article and worthy of FA status. Perhaps the early 20th century statement: "Sandringham had not a single good picture, piece of furniture or other work of art" could be updated, as the house possesses quite a few good works of art, many collected by the late Queen Mother, not to mention Queen Alexandra's large collection of Fabergé. Otherwise, it all seems good to me. Giano   (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very much appreciated and thanks for looking in. And a very good point re. the art. I'd forgotten about the QM's collection of 20th century English works. I'll find a couple of references and alter accordingly. With thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I hope the additional text and the footnotes address your very legitimate concern. KJP1 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Casliber
Taking a look now... (well, I started earlier today but got interrupted IRL) - will jot any queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * In the Early history section, the word "estate" appears in the first 3 sentences. Maybe change the second to something like ".... the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered within its borders/on the grounds" or somesuch...


 * there are no depictions of the original hall around?
 * There's one here, which must be out of copyright by now. Giano    (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very much appreciate the interest. Will address the comments as they come through if that's ok. An image of the earlier Hall would be nice, and I see Giano's found one, but my clipping skills are inadequate. I'll have a look around. I'd also love some interior shots, but they're not actually allowed and the one of the dining room is dodgy in a number of ways. KJP1 (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There's quite a nice one here, second down but it says it's copyrighted, even though it must be 150 odd years old as it shows Edward and Alexandra at the old hall so will have been taken between their buying in 1862, and the rebuilding circa 1865. KJP1 (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with finding something as I feel it will help the article. Also, I was surprised to find Sandringham Estate is a redirect. I did ponder about things such as the seven villages mentioned as being on the estate and more on the gardens, but thought to myself that these would be covered in an article on the estate as this is on the house....but that article is lacking. Ultimately I feel that there is enough context if this article is about the house alone but if it is meant to be on the estate that is another whole kettle of fish....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, a very nice read, with some warmth that makes it engageing, yet concise as well. I think we are there WRT FA-hood but just want to clarify the scope as mentioned above. I figure you'll either find an appropriately licenced image of the old house or not, so if there is none then it is not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Glad you liked it. I completely agree that an article on the estate, as opposed to the house, would have a broader scope. It's a big place, encompassing a number of villages/churches/parishes etc., and would need a broader canvas. Perhaps somebody will write it, but I don't think it will be me. Thanks again for your interest. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the Support and I'll continue to search for a usable image of the old hall. You're quite right, a before and after set would be of benefit to the article. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility: comments and support from RexxS

 * Images: The images all have well-crafted alt text and are sized reasonably well, if a little on the small side to my eyes. However, they don't respect registered users' preferences for thumbnail sizing because they all use a fixed pixel size. That could be improved by using the upright parameter, for example, changing  to  . I understand the desire to keep a balance between images and text, but I always feel architectural articles benefit by making their images as large as can be accommodated without ruining the balance. Our default width for thumbnails is 220px and most of the images here are less than that.


 * Text: All of the text is at least 90% of the page's base font size, easily meeting our standards set at MOS:FONTSIZE.


 * Colours: There is little use of colour made beyond our standard foreground and background colours, which makes its accessibility as good as we can get it. The only exception is the Template:Royal palaces in the United Kingdom, where the blue title bar has insufficient colour difference from the blue link and fails WCAG 2 AAA standards. That, of course, is no reflection on this article as the template does not allow a change from the default Navbox colours.


 * Navigation: All of the elements on the page are navigable without use of a mouse, and all are accessible by anyone using a screen reader. No elements are collapsed by default.

The article has good accessibility overall, leaving little room for improvement. I'd be happy to support the article's promotion. --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - That is extremely kind, and I very much appreciate both the interest, and the carefully-considered suggestions. I absolutely agree that architecture articles are hugely enhanced by images - which is incidentally why I'm slowly working my way through photographing the remainder of Monmouthshire's 250-odd Grade II* listed buildings! - and I'll see what I can do to improve them. Do feel free to have a bash yourself, as I suspect you'll have a much better idea than I what you're doing. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I tried 0.9 upright, but it looked even smaller than 220px. I've plagiarised from Ceoil's Black Hours, Morgan MS 493 at 1.3. Is that ok? KJP1 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was hoping you would play with the sizes to find what looked best. The default is that  is equivalent to  . The image you experimented with was already 250px wide, so you needed something bigger than  . Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, playing around and they are looking better. Just need to jig around the text, and maybe flip a few left/rights. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They already look so much nicer to my old and tired eyes. I have two windows open side-by-side right now on my 4K monitor showing the article before and after your resizing. I think it is a clear improvement. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does doesn't it! Many thanks for the suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Freikorp

 * 'after the Norman invasion' - should Norman invasion be wikilinked? Also 'Norman era' in the previous section redirects to England in the High Middle Ages. Would it be better off linking to a sub-section at that article or even House of Normandy?
 * ✅ - done and done.


 * 'His mode of living to date had been disappointing' ... 'fast living set' - this all seems a bit vague, can you clarify this at all? I.e. What was disappointing and define fast living set?
 * ✅ - done, I hope. I've linked to the Tranby Croft affair, which is the redirect for Marlborough House set. It's not absolutely on point, as Tranby Croft was many years later. Basically, the Marlborough House set were a bunch of wealthy aristos and arrivistes that encouraged Edward in his pursuit of wine, women and song, not that he needed much encouragement, and the idea was to wean him anyway from this crowd by sticking him in the depths of Norfolk where he could live the quieter life of a country gent. It didn't work. Have also put in a note about the Marlborough House set. Is it any clearer? KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 'by the estate's recent historian' - consider replacing 'recent' as per WP:REALTIME
 * ✅ - done.


 * 'This house was built by Albert Edward Prince of Wales and Alexandra his wife' - should Alexandra be wikilinked here as it is the first mention in the body, rather than two sentences later?
 * ✅ - done.


 * 'Following a fire during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday' - it would be of interest to readers to know how the fire started, if such information is available.
 * ✅ - done, I hope.


 * 'on an alley at "Rumpelheim" (sic)' - So what exactly is the error here? Is it spelt wrong? Is it necessary to clarify this spelling error to the reader? At the moment I think it just raises more questions. Can we wikilink it to the correct spelling?
 * ✅ - done, hopefully. This is a bit confusing. Martin spells the place Rumpelheim. He means Offenbach-Rumpenheim, for which the best link is the German Wiki. Should I link that, or this, Offenbach am Main which is the closest we've got on the English Wiki? Or should I just remove the "sic"? Or both? For now I've give the English Wiki link and taken out the sic. KJP1 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 'water being supplied from the Appleton water tower' - this strikes me as odd to mention. Is there anything significant about this water tower? Where exactly is the tower?
 * ✅ - hope I've clarified. It's one of the more significant buildings on the estate and I think warrants a mention.


 * Maybe I'm being pedantic here, but perhaps clarify in the prose that 'Persimmon and Diamond Jubilee' are race horses. Stud farms do not exclusively breed horses.
 * ✅ - done.


 * 'are listed Grade II' - would it be worth mentioning what this actually means? What makes a building grade II, as opposed to grade I or grade III?
 * ✅ - done.


 * Should dates have commas after them? I.e. In 1886, In 2007''',
 * ✅ - hope I've caught them all.

That's all I found. Looks really good overall. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed for the review and for the very helpful comments. Shall get on to them soonest. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Hope I've dealt with everything satisfactorily and thanks again for taking the time and the trouble. It's definitely improved it. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked over everything and happy to support this now. Good luck with the nomination. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated and thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Support and comments from DBaK
I'm so sorry that I am late to the party. Apologies all round. Here are some poorly-organized and partial comments which I hope might nevertheless be some small help. I might try to add some more or I might have been deported to Bad Editor Island before I get round to it.


 * Everywhere: does Royal as a passing adjective need a capital? I think not, you obviously think it does. Choose your weapon!
 * ❌ - Going to need to check these through.


 * Lead, paragraph 1: Occupied from Elizabethan times, the first major house on the site was a Georgian mansion, constructed in 1771. This is an uncomfortable read for me, as it feels like an almost-dangling participle. It was the site, not the first major house, that was occupied from Elizabethan times - can we disentangle these two please?
 * ✅ - Done.


 * History > Early history, paragraph 1: ... even older remains, including the pavements of a Roman villa, have been discovered in the area. Which area? If it is the house site or grounds or just round the corner then fine, but it it's within say a 15-mile radius, not OK. Can we nail down the area a bit more, please?
 * ✅ - Done, as far as I can. Messent says only "on the Estate".


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 2: The resulting red-brick house was complete by late 1870; the only element of the original house that was retained ... - "original house" is a hostage to imprecision here - the only bit of which house, do we mean?? We should say.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 2, the next sentence: The resulting building was entered through a large porte-cochère, straight into the main living room, the saloon, an arrangement that was subsequently found to be inconvenient, and provided living and sleeping accommodation over three storeys, with attics and a basement. This is too long and sets too many different hares running to comfortably resolve them by the full stop. Please fillet out the different ideas (what it provided, what was found inconvenient, an ting) and tell us them in a new one, separately but still somehow interrelated. Also bzzzzzzzt repetition on "resulting".
 * ✅ - Hope this is clarified.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Despite rebuilding the house ... this is like one of those optical illusions where sometimes it's an old lady smoking a pipe and the other way up it's a bearded man playing the sousaphone (YMMV). It makes me go "Despite rebuilding the house, who did what? Oh hang on ..." Please reword to remove the ambiguity. Or maybe just a comma. Anything that stops the terrible terrible sousaphone.
 * ✅ - and similarly this.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... in 1883 a new extension, the bachelors' wing, ... is a bachelors' wing just a thing that we can casually mention (like: my house has one) or is it more of a proper name for this particular thing, so it is the Bachelors' Wing? I sort of think the latter and am worried you have been shouted at by anticapitalists too much (see above).
 * ✅ - No idea as to the extent of your own domain, but I think it's a rare case where I should be capitalising.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: Damage caused by a serious fire that broke out when maids lit the fires in the second floor bedrooms[25] during preparations for the Prince of Wales's 50th birthday in 1891,[26] led Edis to undertake further building and extensions. Aaargh! Another very long sentence that is giving me hallucinations and fainting fits. The thing that led Edis is a very long thing and reads awkwardly. I feel that at the very least a comma after the first word, Damage, would be more correct and read less painfully; the Rolls Royce version would be to rewrite or restructure a little.
 * ✅ - Clarified, I hope.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: ... water being supplied from a water tower constructed by Edward at neighboring (sic, fixed) Appleton - can we please here, or somewhere, mention that this is the Landmark Trust's very fine Appleton Water Tower?
 * Good Lord - I had no idea we had a link for that. Well-spotted indeed! KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Now noted and footnoted.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 4: Edward worked to create one of the best sporting estates ... I am shouting "well did he or didn't he?" at my screen. There's something oddly ambiguous about this choice of words - it's too weak to say he DID, and it's too wishy washy to say that he intended or wished to ... I think either perhaps he should just do it, or he should strive to do it, or something, but "worked" does not blow my horn nor ring my bell. Sorry.
 * ✅ - I think we can comfortably say he did.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Neither his son, nor his grandsons evinced such interest in horses, although ... at the very least that first comma is wrong and should come out. It might be worse than that; I'm not sure.
 * ✅ - Hope this reads better.


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 5: Sandringham was the scene for a considerable number of Royal births and deaths ... "was the scene for" is awkward. Maybe turn it round and say that a considerable number etc happened at Sandringham?
 * ✅ - This, a hangover from the original version, never sat well. Hope it's better now.


 * History > George V, paragraph 1: The lack of space did, however, enable George to limit the entertaining ... which sounds like it was a good thing for George, but I am not sure that we explain it properly ... without that, it might have forced him to do so, etc.
 * ✅ - He did not. Dinner a deux with Queen Mary at home was paradise for him. Hope it's now clear.


 * History > George V, paragraph 3: Queen Alexandra died at Sandringham on 20 November 1925 which finally allowed the King and his family to move to the main house. Well yes but it sounds a bit directly consequential and even opportunist. Can we not somehow say, please, that she died, and that one result of her death was that they moved in ... I'm not explaining this well. I don't want an essay on it, just less A>B in the apparent logic.
 * ✅ - Done, I hope.


 * History > George V, paragraph 3: Two days later, George's body was transported by train from Wolferton to London, and a lying in state at Westminster Hall. - reads oddly for me. Might something like this work? "... by train from Wolferton to London, and to its lying in state at Westminster Hall." I think what is bugging me is that Wolferton and London are places but a L-I-S is a thing? Or something. I just think that even the repetition of "to" would help.
 * ✅ - Amended as per your suggestion.

That's all I have for now. It was that length of train journey! At the risk of stating the obvious, I do support the promotion of this excellent article. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks. The comments are very helpful and not remotely tardy. I shall crack on with them asap. KJP1 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and I am glad to help. Happy editing DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Addendum – a few more comments from DBaK
Just nipping back briefly to Edward VII and then on ...


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 3: That at Sandringham was modelled on an alley at Rumpelheim, Germany. I feel this is in danger of losing the sense a little - could we maybe swap things about a bit to help the reader with something like this? "The bowling alley at Sandringham was modelled on one at Rumpelheim, Germany."
 * ✅ - Hopes this runs more smoothly.


 * History > George V, paragraph 2: A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate, to which the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently. ... "Estate to which" is awkward. To avoid this I would replace the comma with a semicolon and remove "to which" so you would get: "A memorial to the dead was raised on the estate; the names of those killed in the Second World War were added subsequently."
 * ✅ - Amended as suggested.


 * History > Elizabeth II, paragraph 3: In January 1957 the Queen received the resignation of the then Prime Minister Anthony Eden - could we please lose the "then"? Sometimes they help, but this one does not: it's restating the absolutely obvious and inevitable.
 * ✅ - Done, by deletion.


 * Architecture and description > Saloon: why does Edis need to be a colonel here? If it makes sense to give him the rank as a courtesy earlier, then fair enough, but it seems unlikely to be relevant here; I would just use his surname here.
 * ✅ - Done, by demotion.


 * Architecture and description > Appreciation: Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of, mainly 20th century English, art ... I don't think that the commas help or are right - I would simply omit them: "Notable exceptions came to include some of the collection of mainly 20th century English art ..." or reword to avoid this issue.
 * ✅ - Done, as per your suggestion.


 * Gardens: a gift to Queen Alexandra from the comptroller of her household, General Sir Dighton Probyn in 1913 is going to need a comma after "Probyn" if it is not reworded ... the date could be moved earlier to avoid this.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Wider estate > Park House: it is now an hotel - I believe that this should read "it is now a hotel". Queensberry Rules?
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Wider estate > York Cottage: York Cottage, originally known as Bachelors' Cottage, was built by the Prince of Wales soon after ... unless you've been following closely from the start you might lose track of which Prince fo Wales we mean here, so much further down the article. Is there a neat, easy way to remind the reader?
 * ✅ - Done, but does it work any better?


 * Wider estate > York Cottage: Some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, although other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense" - reads slightly oddly. I think I might get the doubt in earlier with something like: "Although some press reports have suggested that the Queen has given it as a wedding present to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, other commentators dismiss the claim as "utter nonsense"" then you can sense which way this quite long sentence is heading while you are reading it.
 * ✅ - Done as suggested.

And that really is me done and shushing now! Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Really appreciate the input, which has greatly improved the article. I shall make a point of inviting you to the PR next time! I hope I'd addressed the issues to your satisfaction but let me know if I've not. I know I need to go through and make my Royals consistent. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind comments. It has been nice to be involved with this interesting article. And I am sorry to bring up one last twinge, but please see below. Cheers DBaK (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Appleton Water Tower – from DBaK


 * History > Edward VII, paragraph 4, where we say: ... and water being supplied from a water tower constructed by Edward at neighbouring Appleton. Two tiny queries. Thank you for connecting it all up to the Water Tower article. At the moment "water tower" is piped (hohoho) to Appleton Water Tower as is right and proper but I cannot help feeling that many readers could easily miss the fact that there is an interesting link there, to a specific thing in the locality when it perhaps looks like a somewhat more routine link to just water tower in a non-locally-specific way. Can we please have a link that somehow shows that there's something more exciting to read about there, before you click it? Next, if they do click the link and go off and read the rather short and sad little article article there, they may be confused, as I was, to read that the tower was built by Prince George, the future George V. Meanwhile back in the Sandringham article it is still being built by Edward VII. Look, I shall demonstrate it for you: George; Edward; George; Edward – did they do it together in George's school hols as a little project? I think not, and have a strong suspicion that this article is right and the tower one is wrong, but am too lazo-stupid to understand then fix it myself so I hope some other nice person will do so, thanks, so there is no weird surprise waiting to ambush the unwary reader who has strayed from this article. No pressure (sorry). Very best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem at all and I've had a go. I hope it addresses the issue. I've also removed the unsourced bit in the main Tower article. Given what the LT site says about junior members of the family laying the foundation stones, my guess would be that GV, then PoW, laid the first of these and that's been reinterpreted as his being the driving force for its construction. Certainly neither the Walch, nor the Pevsner, nor the Messent, say this, although they do have the, odd, ffolkes/Rawlinson disagreement as to who designed it. KJP1 (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much for the excellent improvements in both places. The link from here is great now. You're right about the AWT article, and thanks for removing the dubious bit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Just a few comments,
 * "to a Norman knight, Robert Fitz-Corbun after the Norman invasion.[2]" possibly diminish or spread out the Normans?
 * ✅ - Done.
 * "and in 1771 Cornish Henley cleared the site to build Sandringham Hall.[4] The house was subsequently modified in the early 19th century by Charles Spencer Cowper," what need for "subsequently" when you've dated the events?
 * ✅ - Done.
 * Is anything known about the use of the house at the time it was bought for Edward? Were the owners already seeking to sell it?
 * ✅ - Done. I've expanded the "Early" section a bit to give more detail. It was indeed rather sparse.
 * "which was finalised in the October of that year.[10]" I would slice the "the", personally.
 * ✅ - Done.
 * "The Norfolk countryside surrounding the house particularly appealed to Alexandra, as it reminded her of the countryside of her native Denmark.[24]" I would cut "of the countryside" to leave "... as it reminded her of her native Denmark".
 * ✅ - Done.
 * If Edward VIII was left nothing but the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, how is it that he owned Sandringham House?
 * ✅ - Done. Hope I've clarified this. He got Sandringham, and Balmoral, simply by being the eldest son, although GV could have left them to somebody else, had he chosen. The point I was failing to make was that George V, who had already lost all faith in Ed8's suitability for kingship; "I pray to God that my eldest son will never marry and have children, and that nothing will come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne"; starved him of cash.
 * Can anything more be said about who is presently managing the estate? It does not sound like it is the Duke of Edinburgh, and yet he is implied as still running it."
 * ❌ - Unfortunately not. I am sure you're right and that, given his age, the Duke doesn't actually run the estate now, even though he does spend much/most of his time there. They will certainly have an estate manager. But their own website, here, sheds no light on it. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "with Spanish tapestries, a gift from Alfonso XII of Spain.[108]" it is revealed in a footnote to the next paragraph that these are by Goya. I would say that is significant enough to bring forward, perhaps by adding "by Goya" after "tapestries"
 * ✅ - Done. Actually, they're not all Goya, so I've caveated. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "art assembled by the Queen Mother," This is the first time you mention her; should there be a link? I noe you never link Queen Mary. I note later, "for the King and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother after the Second World War.[120][121] " which is a bit problematical, time wise, with "was purchased by the Queen Mother and installed in 1951.[122] [p] " even more so.
 * ✅ - Done. I hope. And QMary's link. It does become very tricky when one's writing of what X did before they were called X. I got into a similar tangle with EdVII. I hope it is clearer now. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * " James Pope-Hennessy, the official biography of Queen Mary, was even less impressed," some issue or other.
 * ✅ - Done.
 * I realise Wood Farm has its own article, but I'm surprised that there is no discussion of it and its history in the article. The interest, for example, in Prince John of the United Kingdom might lead people to the Sandringham article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Done. Have added a, fairly brief, section on Wood Farm in the Wider estate section.
 * - Very much appreciate the interest and the comments. Shall get on to them soonest. KJP1 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Very much hope I've addressed the issues satisfactorily. Thank you again for your review. Very helpful and much appreciated. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support all looks good now. Enjoyable to learn more about this famous place.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

MOD
It's not a bad article. I don't think it can have material sourced to tabloid journalism, quite apart from FAC. I removed some gossipy material sourced to the Daily Express. Otherwise it looks pretty reasonable. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I appreciate your interest but I'd rather you didn't remove properly sourced material, particularly in the middle of an FAC. While you may not personally like the content or the sources, there's no prohibition on the sources used. Can I ask you revert the removals. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There certainly is a prohibition: WP:BLPSOURCES applies to two of the removals. The 1910 one seems like trivia. I would certainly oppose over the inclusion of this material. --MarchOrDie (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Then put it back and oppose. KJP1 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't, as anyone knowingly restoring material removed under BLP is liable for a block. As I say, it way outweighs the concerns of this FAC, but the article certainly can't pass with it in place. Without it, it probably has a decent chance. Why would anyone want to restore it? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As you wish. I shall restore it. You can then oppose articulating your concerns and I can seek to address them. KJP1 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've removed them again. Meantime I'll note my oppose . An article that is the subject of an edit-war to restore non-compliant BLP material cannot be an FA. Shame. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I'd be most grateful if one of the coordinators could provide some advice on this issue. The editor is concerned at what they perceive as BLP contraventions. I've asked them to set out these concerns, and I would then try to address them, as I have done with all of the comments/issues raised by the previous seven commentators above. Rather than do this, they seek to provoke an edit war on the article itself and then cite this as their reason for opposing. I'm completely stumped as to how I address this odd approach to FAC, which isn't one I've encountered previously. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's actually really simple. The sourcing and the gossipy nature of the material drives a coach and horses through criteria 1c and 1d of the criteria we are working to, hence the oppose. They go further and also break WP:BLP, which it's possible you could be blocked for if you keep restoring the material, and are also covered by WP:NEWBLPBAN, which needn't be discussed here. But the article certainly cannot be promoted with this material in it. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

, has a good point. If the material is true, there will be other sources that support material out there. If there are indeed none at all, then it does raise concerns over its veracity really. I'd be leaning on removing based on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing remotely controversial about the content. One says that the Queen and the DoE use Wood Farm, which they do. The other says that there have been press reports saying that the Queen intends to give York Cottage to the Sussexs, and that there have been other reports refuting this, which there have. But I don't intend to continue this pointless debate - the coordinators will take a view. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , Even if the material is acceptable, the daily express is not really a reliable source, and definitely not for statements on BLPs, or for an FA. I don't see either that the express source supports the statement "since his retirement from official duties in 2017, it has been occupied by the Prince"; the source says "it is believed he has spent a lot of time at Wood Farm in Sandringham since." - even the Express does not state it fully as fact and puts it as speculation/attributes it to sources; and it should be excluded per WP:BLPGOSSIP, and also because I can only find other tabloids when trying to find another source for this statement.
 * Same for the other statement MarchOrDie removed - appears to be only tabloid speculation, which thus should be excluded, per WP:BLPSOURCES: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All the article was saying is that there has been press speculation over whether or not The Queen has gifted York Cottage to the D&D of Sussex. In support of that, you can take your pick of Vogue, Good Housekeeping, Harpers Bazaar , Country Living , the Eastern Daily Press , Fox , Elle , or plenty of others if you don't like the Express and the Metro. As to the DoE at Wood Farm, you can try the Independent , Hello , the Telegraph , the Eastern Daily Press , News Australia amongst others, if the current sources are not to your liking. If however, the consensus is not to have the mentions - for that is all they are - at all, then they are easily detachable as MoD has shown. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All the article was saying is that there has been press speculation over whether or not The Queen has gifted York Cottage to the D&D of Sussex. In support of that, you can take your pick of Vogue, Good Housekeeping, Harpers Bazaar , Country Living , the Eastern Daily Press , Fox , Elle , or plenty of others if you don't like the Express and the Metro. As to the DoE at Wood Farm, you can try the Independent , Hello , the Telegraph , the Eastern Daily Press , News Australia amongst others, if the current sources are not to your liking. If however, the consensus is not to have the mentions - for that is all they are - at all, then they are easily detachable as MoD has shown. KJP1 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Sorry for the belated reply. This would be a valid oppose based on the source, and this issue has arisen several times at FAC, and one or two times on the main page when it hasn't been picked up in review. I think I would follow 's advice and find a better source or remove it. There is no danger of this being archived at the moment, so it is worth taking our time getting this right and getting some sort of consensus. Sarastro (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * - Many thanks, and no apology needed. While I think I can find acceptable sources; The Independent and The Times (11 November 2017, unfortunately paywalled) for Prince Philip at Wood Farm, and Harpers Bazaar and Vogue, amongst others, for D&D of Sussex and York Cottage; for the purposes of this FAC, it's probably simpler to leave them out. The objections appear to be as much as to the "gossipy" content as the sources, and although I'd disagree, certainly regarding the DoE living at Wood Farm, neither's essential to a history of the house. As MoD has already removed the material, I don't think there's anything more I need do? KJP1 (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That's fine. As I said, the only major faults were the inclusion of the three tabloidy gossip factoids. I made a few minor copyedits and standardised the image sizes. I think it's fine now. Support. MarchOrDie (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Firebrace

 * Perhaps more could be said about the Sandringham Estate. For instance, the future George VI took an "almost personal management of the Sandringham estate" and he "made all sorts of improvements, including draining and recovering 1400 acres from the sea" during the reign of his brother Edward VIII (Kevin Cahill (2001), Who Owns Britain). I also find how the estate is used interesting. In 1980 it was divided into 11,890 acres let to tenant farmers, 3,200 acres farmed by the Queen, 1,950 acres of woodland, 1,780 of country park, and so on... (Ralph Witlock (1980), Royal Farmers)
 * ❌ - The issue here is that the article mainly focuses on the house, rather than the estate, (see Casliber discussion above). If I widened it to properly cover the later, it could become a very big article, covering the seven villages, thirteen parishes, dozen churches etc. etc. If there's a specific point you'd like referenced, however, I'd be pleased to add it in. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I would also mention that even though Sandringham is a private house, the Queen paid no inheritance tax in 1952 at a time when it was crippling other country estates and forcing them to be demolished or handed over to the National Trust. (Cahill says the next owner will have to pay inheritance tax because of the 1993 tax agreement.)
 * ✅ - You're entirely right that The Queen didn't pay inheritance tax on Sandringham in 1952, and indeed, contrary to Cahill, it won't be payable again, provided that the estate passes from her to the next monarch, (see para. 1.10, which specifically references Sandringham). I'd happily put something in to this effect, but haven't a source at present. Do you have a reference from the Cahill that I could use? KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And have now found it myself. Shall put it in. KJP1 (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was my inference from Cahill that the next owner would pay inheritance tax; thanks for correcting me. Firebrace (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sandringham is known as the "big house" under George V but this changes to "Big House" under Edward VIII.
 * ✅ Done, by un-capitalising the second reference.

Firebrace (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - I am grateful for your interest and will address your comments as soon as possible. KJP1 (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed for the suggestions. I hope you're ok with my rationale on the first point. Re. the second, I'll certainly mention this, if you've a source I could use (and now done). And thanks for the photo, a definite improvement! KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Before > beforehand

 * I hate to ask but are we absolutely, utterly, totally, fully, indisputably and completely (like, 102%, man) sure that this is correct? It changes ... ending a tradition of Sandringham Time begun by his grandfather over 50 years before. into ... ending a tradition of Sandringham Time begun by his grandfather over 50 years beforehand. I am inclined to think that it must be correct because is clearly a brilliant editor and knows more of that, like, grammer-wordthings-stuff than what I do. (Most people do, in fact. But hey.) And yet, and yet – it just reads a bit more awkwardly to me as "beforehand" and seemed happier, ermmm, earlier. (See what I did there?) I make no claims – well not positive ones anyway – about my own knowledge; it could also be some question of the particular or peculiar dialect of English that I use, or of more formal vs. less formal writing, or I could try and blame my parents, an ting. I'd be happier, though, if a couple of people were to just look at this one more time and reassure me that I am wrong and should just stfu as I understand the Young People charmingly put it. Yes, I am operating at a dangerous level of uncertainty here. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The point Firebrace was making is that 'before' is principally considered a preposition, and so "feels" wrong at the end of a sentence. However, 'before' is also used as an adverb and so is grammatically correct in the phrase ... begun over 50 years before. Of course 'beforehand' is an adverb with the same meaning, as is 'earlier', when used in the same phrase. In that phrase, some folks will read 'beforehand' as somewhat stilted, while others will read 'before' as too informal. No matter what, you won't please everybody, and the best word to use is going to be a fine judgement call. Compare with I've never done this before. In that sentence, I would find 'beforehand' to be the wrong word, although grammatically and semantically, it is fine; and 'earlier' simply wouldn't work at all. In the present case, I wouldn't worry about it either way. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - "No matter what, you won't please everybody". You can say that again! KJP1 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi DBaK, as RexxS says, there are times when 'before' works at the end of a sentence and others when it seems as if 'beforehand' has been shortened to 'before' out of laziness (to my semi-traditional eyes, this is acceptable in speech, but a no-no in writing). I will save us all time and change it to 'earlier'. Firebrace (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all, for the brilliant and kind responses, and for the painless solution – which I do think, pace RexxS, works fine. I will sleep easy tonight knowing that this conflict is gorn. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz
Looking at the lead:
 * "In 1862 Sandringham and 8,000 acres of land were purchased for Albert Edward," - the size of the estate at this date, 8,000 acres, in not mentioned in the body of the article.
 * ✅ - Done, by addition in the body, actually 7,700 acres.


 * "who also owned property at Beachamwell in Norfolk and in Surrey." - Beachamwell is not mentioned in the body of the article.
 * ✅ - Done, by removal.


 * "the estate was mortgaged for £89,000" - the body has "nearly £90,000" - perhaps put the exact figure in the body and use "nearly £90,000" in the lead.
 * ✅ - Done, as suggested.


 * "spent most of their time in Paris" - the body has the less specific "on the Continent" - perhaps put the less specific term in the lead.
 * ✅ - Done, as suggested.


 * "Hoste-Henleys" has a hyphen in the lead but not elsewhere.
 * ✅ - Done, hyphen was my error.


 * The article would be enhanced by a simple plan of the house as it would help the reader to understand the description of the room layout. Do any of references include a plan that can be used as a basis for a simple sketch? Looking at Google satellite images I was surprised to find the front of the house faced ESE rather than south as I had expected.
 * ❌ - I absolutely agree but unfortunately it's beyond my powers. Architecture articles are much improved by a plan, as at The Tower House and Chartwell, but unfortunately the editor who kindly produced those is no longer a regular contributor. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed for the interest and for the helpful comments, all of which I've actioned with the exception of the plan. I'd love one but just don't know how to do it. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: If possible, I'd like to wrap this up, so I'd like an update here. , do you have anything to add? And were your concerns addressed? Finally,, as it stands, I'm taking your oppose as actioned and would disregard it in closing unless you have further concerns related to the FA criteria. Sarastro (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the FA nomination. Firebrace (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Response to MOD
,, - While noting, and appreciating, the Support, I'm still finding your approach to FAC rather problematic. Setting aside whether one can really describe the death of Edward VII as a "gossip factoid", your latest set of unilateral changes has reverted all the images to thumbs. I deliberately expanded them in response to RexxS's Accessibility review. So where do your actions leave me, in relation to RexxS's Support? It may be that he doesn't mind, but, speaking frankly, I find the more usual approach to FAC, of editors and nominator engaging in discussion on the Review Page, to be the more productive. KJP1 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a accessibility issue, but I find those changes to images sizes make the article worse, not better, so I've restored the previous image sizes – as I believe they were carefully considered. MOS:IMGSIZE states "When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text ...  should usually be the largest value for images floated beside text." As the largest scale factor used in the article is 1.3, the image sizes chosen are well within the guidance provided by MOS. I can see no reason in terms of policy or functionality to restrict all images in an article to a uniform size, especially in an architectural article where images are a key element in the presentation. --RexxS (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What evidence is there that they were "carefully considered"? The nominator completely misunderstood your comment. What "detail" is being revealed in File:Wolferton_signalbox_Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg? I won't oppose over this but this revert seems churlish. And as you say, it certainly isn't an accessibility issue. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read MOS:INDENTGAP. The evidence is in the 29 diffs in this list, and in the dialogue at the end of, where it is clear that the nominator did understand my comment through trying out different sizes and placements. So, tell me, what consideration did you put into your wholescale removal of the image sizing? You removed at a stroke what had taken over half an hour's solid work. The fact is that all of the detail is 20% larger in Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg than in your preferred version: Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg . There's really no justification for making that image smaller: if anything it would benefit from being even larger, but I'm not so churlish as to force my preferences over those of the nominator. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What does MOS:INDENTGAP have to do with it? Or the fact that KJP1 took a long time to settle on the current half-assed formatting? There is no detail worth magnifying in that image and magnifying is best used sparingly, not on every single image. It isn't an accessibility issue but a matter of taste. In the current version the images are so big that they slightly dominate the text. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * LISTGAP is a reminder to you not to leave gaps in indented commentary here, as you did in your previous contribution. The nominator took time to decide on the current carefully considered image sizes and placements, and despite your rude dismissal of their efforts, made a much better job of it than your thoughtless return to dreary uniformity. There is plenty of detail worth magnifying in that image, and magnifying is best used liberally in articles where the detail of images adds significantly to the topic. This will be almost invariably true in articles on architecture and the fine arts, where I would expect to see images larger than in the average article. This is indeed a matter of taste and functionality, not accessibility, and I find the present balance between text and images pleasing. In future, I recommend that you bring matters of your taste in image sizing to the nomination page for discussion and consensus, rather than directly forcing your personal preferences into an ongoing FAC. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Read MOS:INDENTGAP. The evidence is in the 29 diffs in this list, and in the dialogue at the end of, where it is clear that the nominator did understand my comment through trying out different sizes and placements. So, tell me, what consideration did you put into your wholescale removal of the image sizing? You removed at a stroke what had taken over half an hour's solid work. The fact is that all of the detail is 20% larger in Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg than in your preferred version: Wolferton signalbox Geograph-1895286-by-Evelyn-Simak.jpg . There's really no justification for making that image smaller: if anything it would benefit from being even larger, but I'm not so churlish as to force my preferences over those of the nominator. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What does MOS:INDENTGAP have to do with it? Or the fact that KJP1 took a long time to settle on the current half-assed formatting? There is no detail worth magnifying in that image and magnifying is best used sparingly, not on every single image. It isn't an accessibility issue but a matter of taste. In the current version the images are so big that they slightly dominate the text. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * LISTGAP is a reminder to you not to leave gaps in indented commentary here, as you did in your previous contribution. The nominator took time to decide on the current carefully considered image sizes and placements, and despite your rude dismissal of their efforts, made a much better job of it than your thoughtless return to dreary uniformity. There is plenty of detail worth magnifying in that image, and magnifying is best used liberally in articles where the detail of images adds significantly to the topic. This will be almost invariably true in articles on architecture and the fine arts, where I would expect to see images larger than in the average article. This is indeed a matter of taste and functionality, not accessibility, and I find the present balance between text and images pleasing. In future, I recommend that you bring matters of your taste in image sizing to the nomination page for discussion and consensus, rather than directly forcing your personal preferences into an ongoing FAC. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you'll find that your "churlish" was the first use of PA in this discussion. I'm sorry you weren't previously able to parse my opening sentence in this thread, but at least you've now grasped what I meant by "This isn't a accessibility issue". Perhaps you'll also eventually come to understand what I mean by "functionality" as well. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're well into NPA territory there so I'll leave you to it. Thanks for clarifying that these magnified images are your subjective preference and nothing to do with accessibility. MarchOrDie (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod
This has been much chewed over, & is pretty much there, so I won't say much except that:
 * Many paras seem too long to me, and could easily be split. In particular those beginning "Within a decade, the house was again found to be too small...", "Sandringham House has not been admired by critics...." and the one para "Wider estate" section.
 * ✅ - Done, Done and Done.


 * Some of the notes might be worked into the text to advantage. Especially the current m,n,s and t.
 * ✅ - All Done.


 * The current photo settings seems fine to me, though there are obvious gaps.
 * I'm guessing you mean interior shots and you're quite right. The problem is that photography isn't permitted inside the house, so there's almost nothing that isn't copyright. I agree it's a pity, for an architecture/building article, but I don't think it can be rectified. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A little on the arrangements for summer (?) public openings should be added.
 * ✅ - Done.


 * Some more on the shooting would be good - it was the raison d'etre for the place.
 * ✅ - I've added a little more in the Queen Elizabeth section. Is that, together with the Edward VII discussion, and the mention in the Wider Estate, sufficient, or do you think it needs more? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "In the 1960s, plans were initiated to demolish the house and replace it with a modern residence by David Roberts" - intriguing. Do we know who initiated this?
 * ❌ - This is a bit tricky. The Pevsner says: "In the 1960s a proposal to demolish and replace the whole house by a design by David Roberts was resisted". No hint as to who did the proposing and who the resisting. My guess, but that's all it is, would be the Duke of Edinburgh. He was, after all, quite a "white heat technologist" in his day. This would seem to be supported by this, and by the Google snippet for this,, but I'm not sure that's enough to definitively state it. You'll see above, that we're already had lengthy discussions on whether the DoE spends time at Wood Farm and whether there has been press speculation over the future of York Cottage, and I'd be very reluctant to reignite a similar debate at this stage. Let me know what you think? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Rather too much in the lead is immediately repeated in the "early history".
 * ✅ - Done by Firebrace.

Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Many thanks indeed. The comments are very helpful and much appreciated, although you're not wrong in thinking this FAC has turned into something of a marathon! It'll be tomorrow before I can get to them, I'm afraid. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - John, mostly done, but with a couple of queries. Can you let me know your thoughts. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Moved to Support Johnbod (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Very kind and most grateful for the input. If I find more on the 1960s plans, I shall put it in. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat
I see I am late to the very extensive review here. No qualms on the text (although "death hastened by injections of morphine and cocaine, to maintain the King's dignity" is about the only time a speedball has been used to maintain dignity!). Support on prose - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Much appreciate the Support. I've taken the liberty of giving your comment a heading, to aid editing, which I hope is ok. KJP1 (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

All done?
- I've no wish to hasten this FAC to a premature close!, but I think we're now at 12 Supports, completed Source and Image reviews, and no actionable concerns outstanding. I appreciate Aa77zz hasn't confirmed their support, but I don't think that there's anything that amounts to Opposition in their comments. Are we done? KJP1 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we can put this one to bed. Note that there are some duplinks you should review -- let me know if you need me to point you to a checking script; won't hold up promotion over it though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * - Ian. Much appreciated. And the script would be helpful. Hope Sarastro is keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Some of the dups might be justified in an article this size, but worth a look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.