# Talk:The Doughnut

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Doughnut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick run through right now has sparked some quick questions:

Why is the article's title and text all about the nickname instead of its proper formal title?
Is there no details on the construction or contractors involved in the building? I seem that a bit hard to believe.
fitting out is a ship-related term, and does not apply correctly to this article.
This is just a quick pass through, but please let me know of your thoughts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have never found a formal title for the building, or seen it referred to as such, even GCHQ themselves refer to it as 'The Doughnut' in the first citation. The building was built by Carillion and designed by Gensler, this is referenced in the section. I think more precise details of its construction are probably confidential. I've removed the 'fitting out' term. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, but what about flipping "The Doughnut" is the nickname given to the headquarters of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)" to "Government Communications Headquarters" and letting "The Doughnut" be its nickname. Seems to be quite the trend with the reporting as well. The Lead needs a bit more detail, it is missing some of the overview - namely the background and design. Since I couldn't find any more sources of relevance - I think this about covers all the published information on the building and gives a good summary of its design. Also, can we move the article over to the formal name as well as part of any "naming changes". After that, I think this is passable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you finish this @Gareth E Kegg:? I do not want to fail it or substantially altered it myself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@ChrisGualtieri: My apologies! I didn't see that you had replied over three weeks ago...sorry. I do feel that like The Pentagon, there is no formal name, the Government Communications Headquarters is the name of the organization, and is spread over multiple locations. I'll expand the lead. Thank you so much for your suggestions. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, no worries. I was on vacation for a week myself! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
There have been no changes still? Are you still working on this @Gareth E Kegg:? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've just expanded the lead as required, thank you. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri, it's been over a month since the most recent edits. Did they solve the outstanding issues, or is there more to do before the nomination can be listed? Please get back to this as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56241511 and https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/01/meteorites-from-fireball-that-lit-up-sky-could-have-fallen-to-earth the impact site might have been in the vicinity of Cheltenham.
Its highly unlikely that the vicinity of either GCHQ site may have been the final location for any of the fragments but still worth investigating.
Wonder if their trackers picked anything up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.137.12 (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)