Talk:Cressingham Gardens

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 11 November 2015 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Urban studies and planning

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Social Housing in the United Kingdom B‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Housing in the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Social Housing in the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Social Housing in the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Social Housing in the United KingdomSocial Housing in the United Kingdom articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Living Pesons Conformity with guidelines[edit]

Re phrased mentions of John Major and Ken Livingstone to conform to guidelines for living persons. These are the only living persons in the article. John15CM (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improved citations[edit]

Made changes to improved citations. Citations changed from Municipal dreams on word press to Guardian, Lambeth Council, and Open City London. Please could wiki editors now identify what statements need better citation. John15CM (talk) 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation to Historic England for evidence of status of listing application. 86.153.168.194 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganize and shorten[edit]

pointed out article to long and navigation difficult.
Suggest new structure
Proposed Headings:
1.0 History
2.0 Architectural Significance
---2.1 Urban Design Innovations
---2.2 Design Failings
---2.3 Overall Successful Design for Council estate
3.0 Redevelopment Controversy
---3.1 Case for demolition and rebuilt
---3.2 Case for repair and refurbish
---3.3 Judicial Review

Is this better structure comments pleas. John15CM (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes of splitting opening into lead and context have solved the navigation prob. Current structure better than what is suggest above.
John15CM (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance Tags[edit]

I think they are redundant. The text is well written and flows and certainly is not to long if you are looking for the information. The references did rely to heavily on one source- but one has to be carefully in deciding about references. The fact that an item exists- can be taken from a shaky reference, to support a a POV then the reference needs to be rock solid. All that could have been pointed out here- this is an active article and changes are easily made with a little cooperation. I will leave this a few days- then zap the redundant tag. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think shortening the article would really be an improvement so the length tag is not needed.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I'm aware that the potential demolition/redevelopment is controversial locally but I think some sections of this article cross the line from information to conjecture/opinion eg "sink estates", "The estate has been a proven success" . Crookesmoor (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good to look at this again two years on. There are certainly opinions expressed here that do need to be supported by a reference.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]