Talk:Tower of London/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review will be posted shortly. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In progress, will continue later. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done. I've been harsher on this article than I would usually be, because I noticed on the talk page that you mentioned FA aspirations. I think it's GA-worthy now, so I've passed it; the suggestions below are aimed for future FA candidacy. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and formatting[edit]

  • "the winter of 1066" - just to clarify, is that January-March or November-December 1066?
  • This should make it clear that it was November/December. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New Years Day AD 1067 would have been on 25th March, so until the middle of the eighteenth century there wouldn't have been any confusion about referring to a particular year and its winter. Thomas Peardew (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set within two concentric rings of defensive walls and moat" - one moat or two?
  • "The Tower of London was oriented with its strongest and most impressive defences overlooking the Saxon city" - meaning the City of London? Should be clearer
  • It is London, but I'm stuck on how to make it more explicit without repeating London in the same sentence. I was going to say which other city it could be, but inconveniently there's Westminster. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are three "wards", or enclosures: the innermost enclosure, which contains the White Tower and is the earliest phase of the castle; around the north, east, and west is the inner enclosure, built during the reign of Richard the Lionheart (1189–1199); finally, there is the outer ward which encompasses the castle and was built under Edward I." - phrasing is a bit awkward, can you reword?
  • How's this? I've broken the sentence down and tweaked the wording a bit so it's not one long stream. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although there were several phases of expansion since William the Conqueror founded his castle" - verb tense
  • I'm struggling with this one, does this fix the problem or am I barking up the wrong tree? Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "donjon"? Consider link or brief explanation
  • Yes; as mentioned below, if you include this here you can take it out of History. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a forebuilding was added to the south side of the tower, adding extra defences to the entrance" - "added...adding" is repetitive
  • "The hall and chamber were originally open to the roof and surrounded by a galley built into the wall, however a new floor level was inserted in the 15th century, along with the present roof" - run-on sentence, and should that be "gallery" instead of "galley"?
  • Simplified. Also, you're right, it should be gallery, not galley. When someone invents a spell-checker that knows what I mean to say I'll be very happy. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest buildings in the ward are unknown due to prolonged activity on the site" - meaning that we're not sure which of the buildings is the oldest, or that the earliest buildings are no longer present?
  • I've thought about this and think that I may be over complicating things. The section already conveys the important information that it was probably used from an early stage and that the ward was dominated by palatial buildings. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two towers were built along the innermost ward's wall along the river" - repetitive "along"
  • Wakefield tower or Tower? Wakefield or Wakefiled? cradle or Cradle Tower? Legge's mount or Mount?
  • "only two of the nine towers he constructed have completely rebuilt" - is there a word missing here?
  • water-gate or Water-gate or Watergate?
  • I was thrown slightly as the sources aren't consistent themselves, but I've gone for "water-gate". Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing commas in several places, and there are a number of run-on sentences
  • Be consistent in whether you use feet or metres first
  • "Six-hundred Jews" -> "Six hundred Jews"
  • "he began took a procession from the Tower to Westminster Abbey" - grammar
  • Woops, a hangover from when that sentence was part of the following one. Fixed. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard spent Christmas at the Tower rather than Windsor was more usual" - grammar
  • "The reign of Henry V (1413–1422) renewed England's fortune in the Hundred Years' War against France; as a result, many high-status prisoners were held in the Tower of London until they were ransomed" - I'm not sure I follow the logic here. He renewed England's financial or war fortune? High-status French prisoners? Why "as a result" did this happen? Please clarify
  • I suppose it was a bit of both. England started winning the war, and the result of successful battles was more money from ransoms. Although that is simplifying things greatly. Does this make things clear enough? Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's better, but I still think it's a bit confusing...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there was no purpose build accommodation" - grammar
  • Check for typos - for example, "the Wakefield and St St Thomas' towers survive"
  • Eek, thanks for finding that, now fixed. I'll have to give the article several read throughs before FAC to make sure there aren't any more mistakes like that. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are only some of the monetary values "translated" for inflation?
  • Well the records of this website only go back to 1264 so figures earlier than that have no equivalent. In some other cases, no particular year is given in the source. The site needs a year to work from. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid one- or two-sentence paragraphs where possible
  • That's been fixed. Some user came a long and split up paragraphs for no good reason, leaving several short half paragraphs. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "State records had been kept at the Tower of London since the reign of Edward I, initially in the Wakefield Tower, for a period it was known as the Record Tower. Then the White Tower was also used for this purpose" - grammar
  • As that bit was poorly sourced to some tourist website, I've removed it. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as many of the post-medieval structures left vacant they were demolished" - grammar
  • "Taylor would ruthlessly removed it" - verb tense
  • "The Tower's use as a prison was renewed during the war and held prisoners of war" - awkward wording
  • "for king's polar bear" - grammar

Accuracy and verifiability[edit]

  • Is the military historian's name Allen Brown or Reginald Allen Brown?
  • His full name is Reginald Allen Brown. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The earliest buildings in the ward are unknown due to prolonged activity on the site; it is likely that since the castle's foundation the innermost ward was filled with timber buildings as was the case at other castles" - source?
  • The source is after the next sentence. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely they would have been private residences for the queen and king respectively" - source?
  • "Flambard was loathed by the English for exacting harsh taxes and is the Tower's first recorded prisoner" - source?
  • The source is at the end of the paragraph. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story about Mandeville, Matilda and Stephen, and the story about the two princes, should be sourced earlier
  • "Henry III resented losing power and sought permission from the pope to break his oath" - source?
  • The sources is reference 72. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The incident is one of the most famous events associated with the Tower of London" - arguable, who says so?
  • The sources says so, ie: Impey & Parnell. Plus it's not saying the most famous event, just one of them. That's hardly controversial. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Tower's reputation for torture and imprisonment derives largely from 16th-century religious propagandists and 19th-century romanticists" - source?
  • The source is reference 94. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However this did not prevent an outbreak of disease in the garrison in 1841 caused by poor water supply, resulting in several deaths. To prevent the festering ditch posing further health problems, it was ordered that the moat should be drained and filled with earth" - source?
  • The source is reference 104. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although only one bomb fell on the Tower of London in the First World War (it landed harmlessly in the moat), the Second World War left a greater mark. On 23 September 1940, during the Blitz, high-explosive bombs damaged the castle, destroying several buildings and narrowly missing the White Tower" - source?
  • The source is reference 108. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became one of the most popular tourist attractions in the country" - source
  • The source is reference 109. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When money needed to be raised, the treasure could be pawned by the monarch" - source?
  • The source is reference 123. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The menagerie's last director, Alfred Cops, who took over in 1822, found the collection in a dismal state but restocked it and issued an illustrated scientific catalogue" - source?
  • That doesn't actually have a source; I'll get on it. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do those citations at the end of the Ghost section support the whole paragraph or just the final statement? If the former, need more citations
  • That's a hangover from the article before the rewrite; I assumed the sources referred to the whole section. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: spelling
  • Ref 28: formatting
  • Ref 107: formatting
  • That information was poorly soured, www.camelotintl.com doesn't seem reliable so I've removed that information. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the footnotes are identical and could be combined, ex. 82 and 85
  • I've merged the two references you've mentioned and will look for others. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34: date formatting
  • Ref 34 is a template, there's nothing I can do about that unfortunately. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are all incidences of Historic Royal Palaces linked except one? Why is one incidence of UNESCO linked and one unlinked?
  • If you're going to include publisher locations for some Bibliography entries, you must include it for all of them
  • Need page numbers for Sax article in Bibliography
  • Use consistent formatting for editions - "3 ed" vs "2nd ed"
  • Further reading should use same formatting as Bibliography
  • Most of the requests for extra citations are when the reference is not immediately after the statement. In these cases, the reference is usually just a sentence or two further on. When a source is used, it usually means that all the information behind it is referenced. (Apart from the bit about the menagerie). The references could be doubled up, but I'm reluctant to clutter the article as they disrupt the flow for the reader. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Under most circumstances, that works fine. However, when the source appears after a sentence that seems to be about a different topic (as was the case for the two "stories"), it's not clear without checking what information the citation applies to. For those two instances at least, I would ask for a doubled citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broad[edit]

  • No serious issues, although I would recommend a brief introductory paragraph under History. Also, it seems like the Architecture and History sections are somewhat intertwined - it seems like the Architecture section depends on History for background information and explanation. For example, many of the questions I asked early in the Writing and Formatting section (regarding Architecture) were answered in History. You can leave the section order as it is, but you must resolve those issues
  • I think a brief section on the background could work. I'd include something on London before the Normans, mostly about the Roman defences probably. Maybe something about why William invaded, although that may be a bit tangential. The history and architecture sections are somewhat intertwined, but my hope is that the current layout allows them to stand more or less on their own, but for a fuller understanding of the Tower they do both need to be read. The idea with the history section is that it provides the bare bones of what was built when so its clear what the setting was, but doesn't bog the reader down with what they may find boring details in an otherwise interesting history (hopefully anyway). Nev1 (talk)
  • Should mention Elizabeth's imprisonment in History section. Also, why is Fawkes only mentioned in a photo and caption?
  • Fair point about Elizabeth, I'll get onto that. Fawkes is one of the most famous people to have been tortured at the Tower, and I think the photo of the signature is well worth including, but the problem was including it without repeating the main text in the caption. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

  • No significant issues; keep in mind that readers will usually not be subject experts, and therefore may need terms explained and concepts clarified
  • They "pawn" royal treasures? In the sense that one might pawn one's jewelry at a shadowy shop?
  • well pawn was the term used in the source, although it is perhaps simplifying things. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

  • No issues

Images[edit]

  • Lead image: needs better description than "Clytie"
  • Norman chapel image: the file page says that this chapel is in Wakefield Tower, while the caption places it in the White Tower. Which is correct?
  • It is indeed in the White Tower. I was a little confused by the file's description until I saw photos of the chapel in the White Tower. The uploader just got it wrong. I've corrected the description, but the file name is trickier. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fawkes signature: missing licensing tag

I notice a lot of images went but why the one of the throne room, I added it because it was important to the fact that this was the premier royal palace... Merlin-UK (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tower_of_London/GA1&oldid=825285446"