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 Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related 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
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
There is a lot more work to be done in cataloguing this house. The site is all but lost, but records must remain somewhere. Fiddle Faddle 19:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
But is this article drawn from external sources - or is it original research ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, you probably have to look at the external sources in the list, don't you. They are scarce, and there is no argument that the article needs improvement. Nonetheless it is notable and verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why do all the visible sources give a build date of 1795/1797, two centuries later? Is this the same house? A later build of a same-named house? For an article having to prove its notability at all, this seems like a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
It is not uncommon for houses to be rebuilt more than once on broadly the same footprint and to use the same name. One only has to look at relatively recent fires in UK National Trust properties to start to wonder when the current version of the property was really built. There is no quarrel with the fact that the article needs improvement, though. FiddleFaddle 21:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
