Talk:Hillingdon House/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · count) 13:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"... the house will be renovated and converted to include a restaurant." And what else?
Currently that is still undecided. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second house

"In 1915 the house and grounds were bought from the Cox family by the British Government". we were told in the preceding chapter that the house was offered for sale by the estate of Frederick Cox, not by the Cox family.
This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... having had four commanding officers and five Sisters-in-Charge". Why is "Sisters-in-Charge" capitalised but "commanding officer" not. Is "Sister-in-Charge" really a proper noun?
This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"On 19 November 1917, 114 officers and 1156 men of the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) Armament School moved into Hillingdon House and paid £2289 12s 9d to the Canadian Red Cross". So the 114 officers and 1156 men paid the money out of their own pockets? Why was any money paid to the Canadian Red Cross? To lease part of the grounds? But we were told that the British Government owned the estate, not the Canadian Red Cross.
This seems to have been some sort of gesture of goodwill from the Royal Flying Corps as they would be using parts of the estate superfluous to the Canadian's requirements. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No. 11 Group were relocated to RAF Martlesham Heath in 1958". To treat No. 11 Group as singular here is inconsistent with the prior treatment of RAF Bomber Command as singular, which is itself inconsistent of the earlier treatment of the Royal Observer Corps as plural. You could legitimately choose either singular or plural when describing these entities, but it must be consistent.
This has been corrected. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chronology of the penultimate paragraph jumps around rather confusingly. Is there any reason not to make this account of the houses tenants chronological?
This has been adjusted. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When did the estate become designated RAF Uxbridge?
This has been added. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redevelopment

"... the house will be partially converted into a restaurant". That's rather different from what the lead told us, which was that the house was to be renovated and would include a restaurant. Presumably this means that part of the house will be converted into a restaurant, not that the house's conversion to a restaurant will be partial?
This has been changed. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and edits. I've made changes based on your suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for me, thanks for attending to this so promptly. Malleus Fatuorum 21:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.