Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:30, 1 October 2010

	Tower of London is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 29, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 2, 2010 Good article nominee Listed August 13, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. More information: /  This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Military history: Fortifications / Technology / British / European / Medieval / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Fortifications task force Military science, technology, and theory task force British military history task force European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. London Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Museums Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. River Thames (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject River Thames, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.River ThamesWikipedia:WikiProject River ThamesTemplate:WikiProject River ThamesRiver Thames Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Historic sites Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. World Heritage Sites This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Ghosts

As The Tower is reportedly the most haunted building in England, it seems fit that the ghost section should be ceded and created into a separate article which details documented ghost encounters and descriptions of those ghosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.132.54 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, I've removed a number of categories that are duplicated in Category:Tower of London. As a general rule, categories that apply to the complex of buildings should be applied there, categories that are limited to specific structures should be applied against the individual structure. This stops overspecification of the category tree, and reduces overcrowding of individual categories with duplication. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"Oldest building used by the British government"?

In what way is the Tower "the oldest building used by the British government", as claimed in the opening paragraph? Specifically, in what way is it used by the government. The quoted source is over a hundred years old so is not necessarily up to date... Dricherby (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has any suggestions, I've deleted the claim. The text was as follows. Dricherby (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is the oldest building used by the British government.<ref name="world and its people">{{cite book |last = Dunton |first = Larkin |authorlink = |title = The World and Its People |publisher = Silver, Burdett |series = |year = 1896 |pages = 27–1}}</ref>

Er...the Tower of London hasn't got any younger since 1896. Please do not delete valid referenced material on the basis that material is held hostage until editors have to answer any question you dream up on Talk pages. The wikipedia is based on references not question and answer original research queries on Talk pages. I don't have the book in question but it is a fact that the Tower belongs to the Queen who is the head of the government (the Prime Minister is her first minister). The first head of government it belonged to was William I in the eleventh century. Colin4C (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

I’ve rewritten the article, complete with references. I’ve got rid of a lot of trivial fluff and imbalance (especially towards recent events). There may be further additions – a paragraph here or there, perhaps some different images – but I expect this is the main body of the article. I’m going to let the dust settle for a couple of weeks before taking it to FAC; I’d like to see this get onto the front page eventually. If anyone has any comments, now would be the time to make them. Nev1 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why have you deleted the official name - "Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress" from the intro? The Tower is not any old castle but the oldest royal palace in England.Colin4C (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I removed it during the rewrite because it felt a bit clumsy. I neglected to re-add it (the lead could probably do with a bit more work), but since it really does need to be there it's back in now. Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can't quite make sense of this: "Like most Norman keeps, the White Tower was entered through the first above ground level ...". Malleus Fatuorum 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really like the phrasing but felt I had limited options when I wrote it. I'd like to be able to say something along the lines of "Like most Norman keeps, the White Tower was entered through the first floor", however as the White Tower is terraced into the side of a mound, ground floor and first floor aren't really meaningful designations (hence why the article uses entrance floor and upper floor). Basically, the entrance in Norman keeps was usually above ground and accessed via a wooden staircase so that in the event of an attack the defenders could remove the means of entry. I've just got to find a way of saying that. I don't think this edit makes things much clearer; I'll have to think about this one. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I just came up with a solution without realising it . Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand it. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 15:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

William Blake and The Tyger

I have removed the following from the article:

This was where William Blake saw the tiger which may have inspired his poem The Tyger.

This is unsourced speculation and it seems uncertain if Blake had even seen a tiger in the flesh, although he had the opportunity. It would be great if someone could find a source, but I've been unable to and until one is provided this unfortunately doesn't belong in the article despite being interesting. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Article structure. What should go first: history or architecture?

When I was preparing the rewrite, my initial intention was to have the history section first and the architecture later on. However as the article developed, it became clear that it was going to be complex. Part of the history is not simply events at the castle but building work, and dealing with that in the history section led to confusion. Buildings could have passing mentions without much detail paragraphs apart. The solution was to put the architecture first; the section is more than simply a description of the castle but is also a potted history of the development of the complex, with each ward more or less representing a different phase of work with subsequent alterations mentioned. It wasn't exactly what I had envisaged as most readers will find the history more interesting that when things were built, but I think the layout is necessary. In any case, it's not a simple matter of swapping the sections round; the history section in part follows on from the architecture section and some careful rewording would be necessary if there were large-scale changes to the structure. Nev1 (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Very nice article, & how wise you are to resist the crap World Heritage Infobox! The lead is a tad short at 2 paras, and there is not much on tourism. It has effectively been one of London's major tourist attractions for centuries, with the menagerie etc. That the 1669 Crown Jewels were virtually all new, and much diminished, might be noted. More on the other executions might be added, if just a listy sentence or two. No doubt Historic Royal Palace's website has visitor figures in a report somewhere - the huge price of admission might also be mentioned! In 1066 isn't "A series of Norman victories along the route intimidated the city leaders into yielding London without a fight" a bit misleading? I thought the last and biggest battle was very close at hand indeed, and a city siege just not the 11th century way of doing things; they went and fought outside. A mention of the fairly recently opened medieval palace suite overlooking the river might be made - this is really rare in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the infobox box adds nothing that can't be better explained in a sentence (and it's just ugly). I'll bulk up the lead while the article's at GAC. I was surprised that so few executions had actually happened within the castle; the Tower acted more as a stop over place before the fateful moment. I'll see if I can manage a few more sentences. I think you make a good point about more being needed on tourism and the HRP website is probably the way to go. In fact I've sent an e-mail to them to ask in what ways they think the article needs changing. No reply yet, but it's only been two or three working days. Allen Brown does note that the Normans did not want a siege as it wasn't their type of warfare, but the city leaders didn't want one either and so capitulated. I think there was some fighting just to the south of London shortly before the city surrendered. I sympathise with Olegwiki's suggestion that the history should come first, but it just didn't work that way when I was writing it. It's not the usual way I write about castles, but I think it works. Realising after I'd started the rewrite created more work for me. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions stats it is the 6th most visited site with 2,389,548 visitors in 2009. Descriptions of the Middle Tower and White Tower might also be useful.— Rod 15:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tower of London/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

In progress, will continue later. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Writing and formatting

• "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)

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)

• "set within two concentric rings of defensive walls and moat" - one moat or two?

• Just the one. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• "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)

• Yes, that works well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• That makes more sense, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is a "donjon"? Consider link or brief explanation

• Does this make things clear enough? Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes; as mentioned below, if you include this here you can take it out of History. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "a forebuilding was added to the south side of the tower, adding extra defences to the entrance" - "added...adding" is repetitive

• Changed the second occurrence to "providing". Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• "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)

• "two towers were built along the innermost ward's wall along the river" - repetitive "along"

• Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Wakefield tower or Tower? Wakefield or Wakefiled? cradle or Cradle Tower? Legge's mount or Mount?

• Now consistent. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "only two of the nine towers he constructed have completely rebuilt" - is there a word missing here?

• "Been" was missing. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• Missing commas in several places, and there are a number of run-on sentences
• Be consistent in whether you use feet or metres first

• Sorted. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Six-hundred Jews" -> "Six hundred Jews"

• Changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• "Richard spent Christmas at the Tower rather than Windsor was more usual" - grammar

• Missing as. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• That's better, but I still think it's a bit confusing...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "there was no purpose build accommodation" - grammar

• Corrected. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Ah, okay, makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• "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)

• "as many of the post-medieval structures left vacant they were demolished" - grammar

• Sorted. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Taylor would ruthlessly removed it" - verb tense

• Changed to remove. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The Tower's use as a prison was renewed during the war and held prisoners of war" - awkward wording

• This had me stumped for a bit, but I've rewritten the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "for king's polar bear" - grammar

• "The" was missing. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• 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)

• "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)

• "It is likely they would have been private residences for the queen and king respectively" - source?

• It's reference 19. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• The story about Mandeville, Matilda and Stephen, and the story about the two princes, should be sourced earlier

• Why? Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• 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)

• Ref 23: spelling

• Corrected. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 28: formatting

• Added missing year. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Why are all incidences of Historic Royal Palaces linked except one? Why is one incidence of UNESCO linked and one unlinked?

• They are now all linked. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

Broad

• 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)

Neutrality

• 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)

Stability

• No issues

Images

• Lead image: needs better description than "Clytie"

• Quite right. Nev1 (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

Officers

One thing this article seems to be missing, except en passant, is a discussion of the officers of the Tower. Besides the Constable of the Tower and the Lieutenant of the Tower, the establishment seems also to have included the (Gentleman) Porter, a physician, and the Yeoman Warders. There should be some discussion of the Tower's establishment, and officers of other branches of government housed in the Tower (the Master-Gunner, Master of the Jewel Office, and so on) should be linked where mentioned. Choess (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Constable and Lieutenant are of course mentioned, although the Yeoman Warders could do with another sentence or two. The Master of the Jewel Office could probably be integrated into the Crown Jewels section. The Wardrobe could be mentioned in a little more detail. Perhaps the Master Gunner and Gentleman Porter could be crammed in, but I'm not so sure. As for the physician, I'm not at all convinced. The problem is, there's a hell of a lot to say about the Tower; the important ones are covered but I think to dwell long on the others would bog down the article. It's already nearly 8,000 words long; while there is of course scope for enlargement as discussed above, I'm cautious about adding too much detail on something that is not especially interesting or important to the understanding of the Tower. Nev1 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Great article. Any chance of adding a bit on Yeomen Warders? Also, do you have any information about the office of Lieutenant of the Tower? It would be great to explain the duties of these officers (and how they changed over the centuries). Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Quickie

"As was typical of most keeps, the bottom floor was an undercroft used for storage One of the rooms contained a well."

That's probably just a missing full stop but it might also be an overlooked edit, or change. Could you check it out? Parrot of Doom 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a full stop going AWOL fortunately. Nev1 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Moat

I wonder if its worth mentioning 1928 Thames flood, and the tentative plans to refill the moat for the Olympics? Although I wonder why they don't refill the moat anyway, the reasons for its emptying no longer exist. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it might be but I don't know how often the Thames floods. If it's a regular occurrence it might be worth including. It's not surprising the moat gets filled during a flood but 1928 wasn't the only time the River overflowed. I've not seen flooding mentioned in the books about the Tower (probably because there's so much else going on) but if the 1947 Thames flood was really the worst recorded in the 20th century (according to Misplaced Pages) I would expect the moat to have flooded then too. The floods are possibly worth a mention if I can scrape something together. It would be a hell of a sight; if there were any photos taken at the time it would be great for the article. It's a shame they haven't deliberately filled the moat, it shouldn't be too hard to sort out drainage to keep the water clear in the 21st century. Nev1 (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that you could add something in like "moat was drained in 18xx, since when, barring the occasional flood, it has remained dry"? Not a huge mention. I bet there are photographs, I might have a look at the Times archive to see if the river flooding was covered in there. What's the rationale behind not flooding the moat? I can't think of a downside. You could even charge tourists for passing through Traitor's Gate :) Parrot of Doom 13:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

chronology

The third sentence of "Foundation and early history" mentions the 1066 invasion, but this was when the Norman conquest of England began. Shouldn't this be mentioned at the start of this section, before "as part of their conquest of England..."? Parrot of Doom 12:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made essentially cosmetic changes, putting the chronology of William's victory and approach towards London at the start, and then moving the stuff about the significance of castles to the end of the paragraph. The next then switches back to chronology. (I think most of your copy edits are intact, although I trimmed a little material). Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

How about this? I wasn't sure how many castles he founded so I just put "several". Is that correct, or would it be more accurate instead to remove that part, since a castle is essentially a fortification? Or are the "several castles" actually a part of the period 1066–1087? Parrot of Doom 14:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good article

Just wanted to say, very good article. Well done to all who contributed! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This disgraceful posting ^ is in clear breach of Talk page guidelines! Which is just as well, as I came here to say exactly the same thing too - terrific article, nice one! Congrats to all involved - excellent text and some wonderful pictures. Now I am going to beat myself up for posting this, pour encourager les autres. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

lol always follow Misplaced Pages:IGNORE :). You would think giving praise would be encouraged. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Name

The name, 'Her Majesty's Royal Palace and Fortress' is given in the lead but not mentioned again in the body of the article. There are no supporting referenced given for this name. The is the kind of thing that may be argued about and used in quizzes, it therefore seems important to me that we have a reference to support this, relatively unknown, name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought an IP simply added it earlier today so i unddid it but i see they were restoring it to undo vandalism. Plenty of sources on the Tower of London website using the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone needs to add a bit to the body of the article giving the alternative name as the style of the article seems to be not to have references in the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

Can I just add what a delight I find it that the "in popular culture" bit is in its own separate article? No disrespect intended to anyone who likes to work on these things, but I sometimes find them a terrible distraction, often irrelevant, and liable to a sort of editorial instability and, er, shiftingness that can make an article frustrating to work on. Shipping this stuff out to its own article is great, and I feel that we should do it more often, where the volume warrants it. Sure, at the other article you can argue all day, if you choose, about what should be in or out and how many episodes of Dr Who or James Bond films or Meg and Mog stories you are going to list, but I think it's much better that this happens in its own space. Good one. DBaK (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea borrowed from the article on Guy Fawkes. After a certain point, it's better if the pop culture trivia is hived off in another article so it doesn't unbalanced things. Also, I happen to think that most of it is unimportant in any case. There is plenty to say about how popular culture has effected the public's perception of the Tower –such as Shakespeare perpetuating a myth about the Tower, and William Harrison Ainsworth making the gory side well-known – but something like Johnny English doesn't really tell us much about the Tower. I was quite happy to remove this from the main article and give it its own. Nev1 (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes! Good stuff, and thanks. DBaK (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tower Bridge

There is no mention of Tower Bridge in the article. Is it completely out of scope?  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - congratulations by the way. An excellent article.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The only connection between the two is that the bridge was named because it was close to the Tower. That's worth mentioning in the article on Tower Bridge, but not on the Tower of London itself. Nev1 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Still in use as a prison?

The following sentence

Since at least 1100, the castle has been used as a prison

is slightly misleading as it implies that the castle is still used as a prison (which I assume it is not!). The past tense would probably be better.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I've switched it to the past tense rather than the imperfect. Nev1 (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Evil May Day riots of 1517

In 1517, during the Evil May Day riots, the then Lieutenant of the Tower, Sir Richard Cholmeley, furiously ordered the firing of some of the Tower's artillery at the City as gangs of young Londoners attacked foreigners, especially the wealthy foreign merchants and bankers of Lombard Street, London, and took control of London for several days. Is this incident significant enough to mention? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Royal Armouries

There doesn't seem to be an internal link to the Royal Armouries; the world's oldest museum and an important part of the life of the Tower since the middle-ages. Alansplodge (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The royal armouries are mentioned in their role as a successor to the Privy Wardrobe. Feel free to add a wikilink. Otherwise, do you have a source that says it was the world's oldest museum? Although the crown jewels were on disply from the 17th century onwards and the armouries could be accessed, calling it a museum might be stretching it. Nev1 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

A great article to have on the front page!

Amandajm (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Query

The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period. In the 13th century, during Henry III's reign, the chapel was decorated with such ornamentation as a gold-painted cross, and stained glass windows that depicted the Virgin Mary and Holy Trinity.

There are two things that I want to question here.

• The chapel's current bare and unadorned appearance is reminiscent of how it would have been in the Norman period.

Is this what Parnell says? It seems very odd to me! I would expect that the expanse of ceiling, particularly the apse, would have been decorated, after the manner of St Gabriel's Chapel (early 1100s) in Canterbury Cathedral.

• gold-painted cross

"Gilded", or "painted and gilded" are both far more likely than "gold-painted".

Amandajm (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check "In the 20th century tourism the Tower's primary role, the remaining routine military activities, under the Royal Logistics Corps, having wound down in the latter half of the century and moved out of the castle."

"In the twentieth century" are my addition.

The question is: do the words "latter half of the century" pertain to the 19th or the 20th century? I am not sure from the context, and may have inadvertently caused an error. Could you please correct this if necessary?

Oh Dear! I have just noticed a verb missing! Will fix! Amandajm (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An historic and a historic

Is there any way, without this Talk page becoming a ranting battlefield, that we can peacefully resolve the "an historic"/"a historic" thing? Or given that everyone knows that they are right, is it doomed to just continue indefinitely as a slow-motion edit war? And if so, does it matter? Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Or ... has it not maybe been discussed to death and/or consensus reached in some more general forum elsewhere, perhaps? DBaK (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:Engvar it should be An Historic as this article uses British English and it's a British English convention to use An before words beginning Ha, He, Hi, Ho, Hu or Hy - though both are correct. 62.25.109.198 (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, this is very much what I didn't want to do here but, no, per WP:Engvar it should be nothing of the kind unless you can show me where WP:Engvar says "always use 'an' in BrE in these cases". It's a form of synthesis to say 1. Engvar says use BrE here so 2. this should say "an historic", because it requires me to accept the unspoken step 1a. the correct BrE usage is "an historic". This I do not accept: I know it is used by some BrE speakers but others, including me, find it archaic and frankly embarrassing. So I see no justification for changing it, and I feel it is important to assert that people who want to say "an historic" cannot simply hide it behind EngVar and BrE. But this is what I mean about trying to avoid the I know I am right about this bit because of course we both know that we are and we can both - well, if we could be bothered - go on asserting that I am right and you are wrong ad infinitum. I was hoping for something a bit more, er, policyish than this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Policy aside, its long been my understanding that "an" is used to make the pronunciation of a following word easier - hence "an elephant" is easier than "a elephant". "An historic" is only needed if one uses the hard "a!", rather than "ey...", or if one pronounces the following word with a silent h. Of course this is all my own research and based on nothing in particular. Parrot of Doom 15:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"this is all my own research" Get the heretic! Prepare the stake!!!! :) DBaK (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have checked a bit and it appears that both usages are widespread and neither is regarded as uniquely correct. By analogy with the instructions about different variants of English I would stick with the original author's choice unless there is a reason and consensus for change. In this case I would say do exactly that: retain, or restore, the original author's choice of words. Mirokado (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure I buy this, but it is a very interesting approach and at least is better, to my way of thinking, than I'm right you're wrong. If I did buy it - and it would certainly be interesting to know what others think - then this would I think suggest that it ought to be "an historic". Of course this just makes me go sassle frassle because I think it's, er, wrong ... but I am not sure if evidence exists to back my prejudice, or maybe it does but I can't be $%^&ed to go and look for it! :) Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Chamley, Benson (2003). "Sir Richard Cholmondeley, Cheshire's most famous unknown". The Family History Society of Cheshire Magazine. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
2. Parnell 1993, p. 32 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFParnell1993 (help)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Unknown-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class fortifications articles
• Fortifications task force articles
• FA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• FA-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• FA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• FA-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• FA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• FA-Class London-related articles
• Top-importance London-related articles
• FA-Class Architecture articles
• Top-importance Architecture articles
• FA-Class Middle Ages articles
• Mid-importance Middle Ages articles
• FA-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• FA-Class Museums articles
• Mid-importance Museums articles
• FA-Class Historic sites articles
• Mid-importance Historic sites articles
• WikiProject Historic sites articles
• FA-Class World Heritage Sites articles
• Unknown-importance World Heritage Sites articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles