46-Page Oral Surgery WordPress Build

Client (end user): Goodove Oral Surgery — Virginia Beach & Chesapeake, VA
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: April – May 2025 · 33 days · 71 hours across build and fix-and-feedback phases

The Craft of a Build

A 46-page oral-surgery WordPress build whose agency brief opened with an explicit warning about “a lot of URL changes, redirects, and deletions.” The predecessor site had accumulated years of URL drift across two practice locations; 12 redirect pairs, 10 URL-change rows, and 4 obsolete pages had to be reconciled against the new Adobe XD design spec before the launch checklist could close.

This case study is a record of that kind of precision build — an oral-surgery practice serving two locations, delivered for a US marketing agency in the oral-surgery segment.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Goodove Oral Surgery — a Virginia Beach-based oral and maxillofacial surgery practice with a second location in Chesapeake — handed us a Google Sheets workbook with a full URL map, an Adobe XD design library, a launch checklist, and a pre-populated issues backlog. The build ran on their WP Engine environment; the page builder was Elementor; forms were Gravity Forms. The workbook carried an explicit agency warning: the predecessor site had accumulated years of URL drift, and the new build had to reconcile every changed path, every deleted page, and every relocated service description.

The ask: build all 46 pages against the agency’s template library, reconcile the redirect map from the old URL surface to the new one, wire per-location contact data and review widgets for both Virginia Beach and Chesapeake, and work the issues backlog to agency-acceptance before handoff. Design, content, SEO strategy, and client communication remained with the agency. The agency’s issues backlog tracked 15+ post-build items that surfaced during QA — links, layout adjustments, content placement — each requiring a return to staging and a fresh agency review before it closed.

How We Did It

1. Ten templates, 46 pages, one build pipeline. Goodove’s pages spread across the agency’s standard local-business template library: Homepage (1), About Us (1), Doctor Page (2 — Dr. Scott Goodove and colleague), Service Landing (1), Service Page (9 — dental implants, wisdom teeth, extractions, bone grafting, exposure of impacted teeth, oral pathology, TMJ disorders, facial trauma, pre-prosthetic surgery), Patient Info Hub (1), Referring Doctors (1), Blog Lander (1), Contact Page (1, with Virginia Beach and Chesapeake subpages), and a Default Template that caught 27 supporting pages (disclaimer, links of interest, job openings, individual surgical-instructions pages, and location-specific content). Each page was built on its assigned template from the sitemap row; no page was hand-rolled outside the template system.

2. Spec followed line-for-line — including the per-page Hours Estimated column. The agency’s workbook carried an Hours Estimated value for every row. The homepage received the largest single-row budget; the 27 default-template supporting pages received the smallest per-page allocation. We implemented against each value. The aggregate came in at the agreed 71 hours for the project.

The principle behind this is simple: on a build with a pre-costed sitemap, the workbook is the contract. A dev team’s job is to deliver inside the row-level budgets, not to re-open the pricing conversation page by page. We built every page present in both the workbook sitemap and the Adobe XD design files — even pages the sitemap rows had not explicitly captured — because earlier projects had shown that omission from the sitemap did not mean omission from what the agency expected delivered.

3. Redirect reconciliation across 12 unique URL pairs. The workbook’s sitemap tab carried explicit Action flags: Redirect, Delete, or Build. We reconciled 12 redirect pairs from the old URL surface to their new targets — patient-information paths consolidated, review subpages collapsed into a single reviews lander, and surgical-instructions pages relocated under a unified hub. All redirects were verified against the staging environment before handoff.

4. Issues backlog worked to agency-acceptance before launch. Issues were tracked in a single agency-side backlog tab — 86 rows covering layout fidelity, mobile responsiveness, content accuracy, widget integration, and per-location data consistency. Of those 86 items, 82 closed as Completed before launch; 1 remained in QA, 1 was Info-Needed on the end client, and 1 was a To Do carried forward by the agency. The 40-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration — closed behind the backlog.

The redirect map was what ordered the build. Pavel’s opening brief said “очень внимательно и подробно рассмотрите редиректы” — examine the redirects carefully and in detail — before a single page had been estimated. Working from that constraint meant the 12 redirect pairs were reconciled against staging before the launch checklist opened, not after it closed.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s 46-URL oral-surgery build shipped across 10 templates on the WP Engine environment, inside the 71-hour quoted budget. A 12-pair redirect map reconciled the old URL surface, the issues backlog was worked to agency-acceptance levels, and the launch checklist closed before the domain went live.

Operational Integrity at handoff

When the internal QA pass ran against the issues backlog, it found that items had been marked Completed before QA had actually been applied — a URL check immediately surfaced a High-priority 404 on /disclaimer/ and a broken procedures sitemap, both of which were corrected before staging was shown to the agency. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA discipline for the categories and the fail-zero gate. The agency’s own QA layer — their tools, their process — ran post-handoff and surfaced issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they signed off.

Process

Build and redirect reconciliation ran concurrently from the second week; the QA tail began before every build-phase item had closed — which is why the calendar is 33 days rather than the sum of sequential phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — build review and QA support
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — developer support on late-phase content updates and backlog corrections
• Liza — manager-side QA spot-checks
• Lyudmila Travkina — lead developer across build, redirect reconciliation, and widget integration
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management and client-facing communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was invisible to the end client.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build