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 England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
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
Ran Checklinks and the references are all clean as a whistle - no problems. Shearonink (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Checklinks didn't catch Ref #9 which has gone dead. Please adjust/correct as necessary. Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked & revised.— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that my previous concerns have been addressed but there is now an additional issue - please see "One last thing" section. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a Grade I ...should be... Wikilinked. The first incidence of Grade II* and Grade III in the article should also be Wikilinked.
"listed" was wikilinked to Listed building but I have changed it so the whole of "Grade I listed" is wikilinked. If I wikilink the others they would all point to the same article & therefore would be a case of overlinking.— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph uses the word it a total of 6 times, This paragraph should be recrafted - the overuse of "it" is jarring to the reader.
I have changed several of them to "the manor", "the property" or "the property".— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After spending £3 million on refurbishments, They undertook renovation ...should be... After spending £3 million on refurbishments,[9] they undertook renovation
Capitalisation changed
A couple other things with this sentence:
I think it is important to mention why Seymour & Flynn bought furniture from Littlecote House - there was very little furniture actually in the house itself.
the sentence is a little unclear. It almost implies that Seymour/Flynn brought in furniture from another house they owned or something but they bought certain pieces from Sir Seton Wills.
I've made various tweaks to this to try to explain.— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what is the difference here between "refurbishments" and "renovation"
My understanding is that refurbishment is about decorative aspects, whereas renovation includes structural work.— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The north front, which is the oldest part of the house is Elizabethan but incorporates parts of the earlier priory grange.[1] It has sloping gables to reduce the load on the walls beneath them. ...should be... The first sentence is a fragment and confusingly constructed. I am not sure if a comma was intended instead of the period but in any case, there needs to be some adjustment of the wording & punctuation here.Shearonink (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at rephrasing these sentances - is that any better?— Rodtalk 17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much better - thanks for all your adjustments. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodw: Per a recent RFC on the issue, the Daily Mail is now not generally accepted as a reliable source. The 2 references that use this newspaper/media publication as their source will have to be adjusted to use something else. Pending these corrections, I will be able to finish up this Review within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in revisiting that RFC so I have replaced them with articles from The Telegraph. I can look for further sources if needed.— Rodtalk 17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]