Talk:Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall

Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 6, 2016. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall had a screen installed to ensure that passersby would not see the King of England in his bathtub?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall.

Wikipedia

Historic sites Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance 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.

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Privy Garden of the Palace of Whitehall/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 13:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review over the next few days. Miyagawa (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still planning to review this one, just lost track of it. Miyagawa (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's finally get this started. I work near Westminster so it's very interesting to see what the old "floor plan" of the area once was.

Image licences are all good.
References are fine.
No dab links.
You link Palace of Whitehall twice in the lead.
"a monstrous act of vandalism" - I'd suggest that you say who said that in the article text itself. Otherwise you'll only get someone come along later and throw in one of those "by whom?" templates.

I think that's it. An interesting read, and I never knew one of the Trafalgar Square statues originated from these gardens. Normally I'd suggest adding an image of it to the article, but I think there's already the right balance between text and images already. Miyagawa (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for doing this. I'm sorry I've not had a chance to respond until now, but I'll address your suggestions over this weekend. Prioryman (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa: OK, thanks for your patience. There weren't many changes to make, but I've taken out the redundant link you identified and attributed the statement in your last point. Hopefully that's everything that's needed? Prioryman (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prioryman: Thanks, I'm happy to promote on that basis. Very interesting article! Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (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.