Talk:St Paul's Tower

Biased edit?
This St Pauls Tower article contains comments that I would regard as opinion and bordering on a sales pitch. Much of the text sounds as though it has been lifted from a press release or similar. The link to the sales brochure reinforces this impression. It needs to be written in a more neutral manner. stan matthews 15:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Feel free to rewrite it!  L.J.Skinner wot 01:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Recent report of administration section also contained speculative comments at the end of section (POV) ?, so have removed as other places for speculation. Administration is FACT so added news reports as references as ref section was missing any way. -BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

St Pauls Tower or St Paul's Tower?
The apostrophed version seem to predominate in the article but is missing from the article name. Which is right? S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)