This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Thank you Basilicofresco for that explanation. I do not see that your expansion of the footnote helps a reader, who if actually interested would have to make the link to see what it is supposed to mean. I have therefore reinserted the explicit words in the text, together with the ref. as you propose. Can we leave it at that? Qexigator (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this article follows quite an unusual arrangement compared to other Wikipedia articles and needs a bit of an overhaul. The introduction for example feels like it needs to go in a History section with a more succinct replacement. The rest of the sections could do with some further recategorisation of information and rearrangement. Gul e (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
