Talk:Royal Oak, Frindsbury

Royal Oak, Frindsbury has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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: February 11, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Royal Oak, Frindsbury appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Royal Oak (pictured), a 17th-century public house in Frindsbury, is rumoured to contain a timber from the HMS Royal Oak?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Oak, Frindsbury.

Wikipedia

England Low‑importance

	England portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beer Low‑importance

	Beer portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beer, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Beer, Brewery, and Pub related articles 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.BeerWikipedia:WikiProject BeerTemplate:WikiProject BeerBeer articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Facebook edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Facebook is not usually regarded as either authoritative or permanent. Can someone please therefore find alternative citations for the two facebook cites. I'm marking them as {{cn}} but will leave the links in place temporarily. A local paper or reputable website (BBC local perhaps) would do. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Martin of Sheffield: I've gone through the article and removed the duplicated/non-notable info, and the Facebook event ref, that were added by the anon editor. I'm not sure whether the one to the Facebook group should be removed, though - the group doesn't seem to have a proper website, with the group page acting in its stead, so might be worth keeping as a ref. But I've left the citation needed tag for now, as it should have a second reference in that case. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've added a second ref for the remaining info linked to the Facebook group. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good work, thanks. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

No longer a pub edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Mike Peel: Does the lead reference to this being a "public house" now need to be removed, given this is how the article opens and is, since the redevelopment, erroneous and now historic? The prose still suggests this is current, until you read further on. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bungle: Good spot, updated! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic