Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tower of London/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 05:54, 13 August 2010.

Tower of London

 * Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the off chance you're reading this nomination out of curiosity and haven't heard of the Tower of London, it's one of the oldest castles in Britain. A popular tourist attraction, millions of people flock to the Tower every year. Owned by the monarchy and situated in England's capital, the it has played a prominent role in the country's history. Many well known figures in history have played their part in the Tower's history such as Richard the Lionheart, Elizabeth I, and the Duke of Wellington. Some have met a sticky end at the Tower such as the Princes of the Tower and Lady Jane Grey, although perhaps not as many as you might expect. Its long history has inspired writers such as William Harrison Ainsworth, and even in the 19th century around half a million people visited annually. As the Tower's chequered has gathered a lot of attention, it is unsurprising that there's a vast quantity of literature on the castle and its history. The article concentrates on the works of Geoffrey Parnell; they're up to date and official: he's the Keeper of the Tower History at the Royal Armouries. I emailed Historic Royal Palaces (the charity that cares for the Tower) a few weeks ago to see if they had anything to say about the article (I was hoping they might help with contacting Parnell himself), but have unfortunately had no reply since. In an article where so much can be said, inevitably some details will be omitted. There's plenty of scope for expansion into other articles such as Tower Hill for executions and list of prisoners of the Tower of London, but the article is fairly long already and covers the main points of the castle's history. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article and I hope you like it.

Did I mention there's a polar bear? Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links; (slightly biased) support from GA reviewer. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the rigorous GA review, and of course the support. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be taking a closer look but my first impression is that the text is quite ponderous - lots of large paragraphs which make the article heavy going. It's 76K in total so perhaps more précis is needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per criterion three:
 * File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg - Should have an explicit assertion of authorship. Is Padraig also the author, or merely the uploader?  Hitherto deleted en.wiki page is not an acceptable source.
 * File:Plan of London in 1300.jpg - What is the copyright status in the United States? PMA is not relevant for published works, even those by foreign nationals (PMA is the determinant for unpublished works; published works rely upon date of publication, registration and/or renewal).
 * File:Princes.jpg - Needs verifiable source per WP:IUP. Current source of "Source not required, well known public-domain art piece, see other versions" is utter rubbish.
 * File:Guy fawkes torture signatures.jpg - Image does not appear at source provided (was it edited from the source version?)
 * File:Imperial State Crown2.JPG - Copyvio? (Uploaded there before it was uploaded to Commons; Commons version is lower resolution and has Photoshop meta-data - to crop out the number?)
 * The last one looks to be derivative of another Commons work; let me look into it more. Эlcobbola  talk 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As is deceased and unable to clear this up, I've removed the image for now. I suspect that Padraig was the original author, could this be cleared up by restoring the en.wiki version and seeing if there's an explicit assertion there and then updating the commons description?
 * The work was published in 1926, so my understanding of this is that it's still copyrighted and has to be removed. Correct?
 * I've left a note on the uploader's page asking what the source was, although as they seem to edit infrequently I can't guarantee a swift response. Would it be acceptable to upload the version here over it and then give the source?
 * It could have been edited from the source, although that doesn't explain the source of the other signature. Worst case scenario I can just remove the image and integrate the text into the article, although I like the understated way it conveyed the effects of torture. The uploader hasn't edited in about three years. It looks like one signature was cut from the document linked as a source (the barely legible one) and the other from the link you found. Would it be sufficient to give both those links and explain the editing or is it reading too far into the mind of the uploader?
 * The commons version is cropped from this which looks identical to the image you've found. The larger image on commons was uploaded in May 2006, whereas the link you've provided seems to be from 2009. They could have lifted the image from Wikipedia? Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, although it doesn't need to be restored; view deleted would be sufficient. I'd do it myself, but the "bug" hasn't been corrected in more than two years now.
 * It could well be PD if they failed to comply with US formalities (copyright notice at the time of publication and subsequent renewal), but that needs to be determined.
 * That would be acceptable, or even the already uploaded File:The Princes in the Tower.jpg would suffice. The image just needs to have a proper source - an no flippant remark.
 * The image is unquestionably PD (in fact, the license is actually wrong because a mere signature would not be eligible for copyright in the first place, thus a term that never existed could not have expired), it's just an issue of provenance. You could replace the current image with the one at the source.
 * I noticed that link was (apparently) a parent from which this was derived, not just an alternative (thus the strike). I've left a message for the uploader to start to clarify the origin.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Padnaig put the following in the description for the image: "== Licensing == " . Ucucha 20:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've updated the commons description for File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg per what Ucucha said (thanks for the help).
 * I've removed the plan as I'm not sure how to check whether the publisher went through the formalities.
 * I've carried out what I suggested for the princes' image and have given a more descriptive source.
 * I've elaborated on the source for the Fawkes signature, Which license would be more applicable here? Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the signature, let's actually leave a PMA license for the time being. UK is Common Law with a lower threshold of originality than the US.  While the notion that this could be copyrighted is somewhat silly in the latter country, hosting on the Commons means both country's standards need to be considered.  Other issues are resolved except File:Whitetowerlondon.jpg, which I'll address in a new comment for the sake of organization.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Which signature of Fawkes can you not see? The tortured one?  Look here Parrot of Doom 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  I found the style generally OK. A few comments below. Mirokado (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read this through again and the outcome of my remaining comments below will not affect my supporting this article. Mirokado (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Advisor.js gives 7 suggestions for tidying up the wiki source: whitespace, HTML entity, nbsp-dash, ISBN HTML entity. (Not a requirement for FAC, I think, but I would do this if editing the article.)


 * Inner ward, Outer ward:
 * As far as I know "the Bloody Tower" is one of those names which nearly always retains the article. I think the list of towers will read better if ending: "... Lanthorn, Wakefield and the Bloody Tower." Similarly the occurrence later in Outer ward should be "It replaced the Bloody Tower..."
 * I also suggest a brief derivation of the name, thus: "It was a simple structure, protected by a portcullis and gate.[34] The name arose because... [ref]" or whatever.


 * Good description of the origin of the name, thanks. Looking at the latest update, I have changed the article further so that the note about accommodation precedes details of use and the towers are mentioned in the same order as the list. This also avoids the justaposition of two "Bloody Tower"s which seemed clumsy. By the time I'd sorted all that out I had prepared the change anyway. Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your change works for me. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Expansion: "...Edward filled in the moat dug by Henry III and a new curtain wall built along its line, creating..." --> "...and built a new curtain wall..." or similar.


 * Changing use:
 * "Once the Royal Bodyguards, by the 16th and 17th centuries it had become the main duty of the Yeoman Warders to look after the prisoners." rephrase, for example: "Originally the Royal Bodyguards looked after prisoners, but by the 16th and 17th centuries this had become the main duty of the Yeoman Warders."
 * "...could live in comparable conditions to what they could expect outside;" --> "...could live in conditions comparable to those they might expect outside;"


 * Restoration:
 * "this was manifest when the New Horse Armoury was built in a Gothic side immediately south of the White Tower" --> "...in Gothic style..."?
 * "...the New Horse Armoury was built in the Gothic side immediately south of the White Tower" Sorry to seem picky, but I still can't visualise what you are trying to say here:
 * the side of what? A wall, another building?
 * was the style of whatever it was already Gothic and the Armoury an internal refurbishment or was it a new building in Gothic style which used an existing facade as part of its structure? Or what?
 * Not being picky at all, that was me being dense and not understanding what you were saying. Hopefully this should clear things up. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well my first comment was a bit laconic. That is fine now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "it was one of the sights of London that foreign visitors wrote about" It would be nice to have a specific reference for this so we can read a contemporary comment.


 * Crown Jewels: "and consequently was closed guarded" --> closely


 * A quick check of the sources shows that you're right, the Bloody Tower does usually retain the article and it certainly reads better so I've changed the article. And here's the explanation of the name.
 * Agreed and changed.
 * The confusion may be because Royal Bodyguard is capitalised (I took the lead from the source). Perhaps this makes things clearer?
 * Yes, clear now. Thanks. Mirokado (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your suggested phrasing regarding conditions inside the Tower is better so I've made the change.
 * Made the change about the Gothic style.
 * A nice suggestion, and it would add a bit of flavour. Parnell doesn't give a quote on the page referenced, but I'll take another look at the sources to see if there's something good to add.
 * Changed to "closely". Nev1 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment The article is looking good. While reading it I just wondered... I know its impossible to list all the famous people who were imprisoned/executed in the tower but would it be worth including others eg James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth & Richard Whiting (Abbot)? Also I wondered why the Ravens are in "Restoration" rather than "Menagerie" .&mdash; Rod talk 19:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of those imprisoned in the Tower is one of interest, which is why I created list of prisoners of the Tower of London so the main article wouldn't get bogged down with listy details (although the list is in a terrible state). I don't see why a few more names can't be included though as examples of the Tower's use as a prison in the 16th and 17th centuries. How would you suggest going about it? The earliest reference to the ravens isn't until after the menagerie has closed. I wasn't sure where to fit them in, so I went for the bit about tourism as although they're well known they're not really that important. There's a particularly grumpy quote from Allen Brown where he says "Nor does the presence of those morbid ravens contribute to our understanding of the Tower of London". That's one opinion, they certainly need to be mentioned, although how it was before discussion of the ravens took up about a sixth of the entire article! Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I found the list of prisoners of the Tower of London after looking at the article - so I've added them there, As far as the Ravens go I'd agree with them being touristy, but they are currently in a paragraph titled "Restoration" - the last two paragraphs could have a sub title about tourism or similar? &mdash; Rod talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth splitting off the last two paragraphs into their own section as they're a bit short on their own. However, as the tourism stuff does fit well with the information about the Tower's restoration, I've retitled the section so it's more representative of the content. Nev1 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments Publishing" (Bennett book) and "Osprey" (Lapper book)?
 * Ref 145 (Farson): why no page number?
 * Bibliography. Publisher name: consistency required as between "Osprey

Otherwise sources look good, no outstandiong issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've sorted out the publisher inconsistency. was the user who added the Farson reference. I've left a note on his talk page asking about the page number, he doesn't seem to be active at the moment. Here are two examples of where he's given sourced information   that has checked out when compared with another source . I have no reason to assume the reference is incorrect, just a bit imprecise as it was added nearly three years ago. I have ordered the book from Amazon, but it will be a few days before it arrives and I can provide the page number. Nev1 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Advise add page number when available, to avoid later queries. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments: I must admit, you reeled me in with the polar bear line; I thought to myself, how did I miss that during the tour?! Alas, I was 800 years too late.  A very good overview of the topic, with all sorts of sordid details and intrigue, as I would expect.  A couple comments before I support:
 * Works listed in "Bibliography" and "Further reading" need publication cities added.
 * While reading, I noticed a few times in which something is mentioned in the "Architecture" section, and not linked; later in the article, however, it's mentioned again and then linked that time. The Princes in the Tower and the Crown Jewels are examples of this first-time-mention, second-time-link issue.  Since it's such a long article, I see no problem linking both times, depending on how far apart these separate references are, but my point is, is there were several times when I wanted to click on these items when I first came across them, but had to scroll down for the links.

María ( habla con migo ) 13:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen some articles that include the city of publication (I've included it in some articles myself, usually capriciously rather than systematically), but I'm not aware of it being compulsory. So while today's Featured Article (23 July) gives the location, Cotswold Olimpick Games promoted a week ago doesn't. As for links, the examples you've given are both linked in the lead. I think you make a good point that in an article of this size terms can be linked on more than one occasion without breaching WP:OVERLINK. I've added a few more links, mostly names but also the two examples you gave. As you have a fresh impression of the article do you have any more suggestions of terms that need linking? Feel free to link them yourself (I've seen the article through several permeations and have moved links around several times with an eye towards WP:OVERLINK so I'm not sure myself). Nev1 (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wl fixes. As for the inclusion/omission of publication cities, it would help.  I personally think it mandatory in order for a citation to be complete (per MLA, APA and Chicago, off the top of my head), but if it's not required by the MOS, then who do I blow raspberries at to make it so?  Seriously though, it would at least be helpful to include the city for those larger-scale publishers that have more than one branch location (Oxford Uni Press, for example).  María ( habla  con migo ) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * The "C" of City of London is capitalised in the lead but not in "Layout" - is this because in Saxon times it may not have been part of a formal title?
 * In short, I'm not sure about this. I thought "City of London" was an official designation and might not be applied to the Saxon settlement, but as I'm not sure I've simplified the text so it just reads "Saxon London". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Saxon be wikilinked possibly to Anglo-Saxons?
 * Probably worth a link so done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should wards be wikilinked to Ward (fortification)?
 * I didn't realised that article existed (although it certainly should, and it's a recent creation). I've added a link. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Liberties be wikilinked to Liberty (division)?
 * There's an article on the Liberties of the Tower of London so I've linked that instead. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Norman be wikilinked to Norman dynasty or similar?
 * I've added links to Normans and Norman architecture in the architecture section . Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should stained glass be wikilinked?
 * Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I had to look up "enfilading fire" would a link to Enfilade and defilade be useful to ignorant souls like me?
 * A good suggestion and done. Also as flanking is a simpler and much more widely understood way of saying the same thing I've swapped it for the slightly jargon-y "enfilading fire". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At the end of the first paragraph of Inner Ward we have the 16th century before info about a gatehouse built between 1339 and 1341 - I would have made these chronological. You could move "The Bloody Tower acquired its name in the 16th century as it was believed to be the site of the murder of the Princes in the Tower" into the subsequent paragraph where the building of the Bloody Tower is described.
 * A good suggestion, so that's precisely what I've done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Stuart be wikilinked to House of Stuart?
 * Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should crenellations be wikilinked to Battlement?
 * Battlements are more widely understood, so I've added that as the description (with a link) although I've kept the note that they're also known as crenellations. If someone reads the article before or after visiting the Tower there's a good chance they'll encounter the term. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In "Foundation and early history" William is advancing through the country before the description of the Battle of Hastings - doesn't seem logical to me
 * Good point, what do you think of this? Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no reference to support the claim that "William appointed Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, as the person in charge of the construction."
 * The reference was after the following sentence, but I've doubled it up to make it more obvious. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * a keep (also known as a donjon) is explained in "White Tower" does it need to be repeated in "Foundation and early history"?
 * Although the history and architecture sections are linked and the best understanding of the article is to read it top to bottom, I've tried to make the two parts able to stand separately. That does mean there'll be some repetition. In the case of explaining what a keep is, it stands out because if you do read the article as it's intended the repetition is quite close together. I'm not greatly attached to it, but think that it will help more readers than it aggravates, although if you think I'm beating the reader over the head with the point I'm happy to remove the second occurrence. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether "also known as a donjon" is needed each time but I'll leave it for others to comment.&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * A fair point I think, so I've removed the second clarification that keep is synonymous with donjon. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Normans brought over hundreds of Jews for financial reasons" might need to be explained
 * The phrasing sounds politically incorrect from a 21st century point of view, but that is pretty much what the source says. Parnell doesn't go into more detail. The depth of his statement is "It was the early Norman kings who, for financial reasons, introduced the Jews into England from Normandy." Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again leaving this one in case others have comments - but my thought was "what financial reasons"?&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean by "tried the same trick again" but it might not be considered encyclopaedic language
 * I see your point, it might be considered a bit colloquial for an encyclopedia. I've swapped "trick" for "ploy". Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are these claims about Mandeville (whose name is wikilinked twice in the same paragraph with the second mention covering material covered the first time i.e. "(a friend of William the Conqueror's and ancestor of the Geoffrey that Stephen and Matilda dealt with),") all covered by ref 66 ?
 * Yes. The second link is actually to an earlier Geoffrey de Mandeville. As it's a little confusing I thought it was worth mentioning who the first Geoffrey was (ie: "a friend of William the Conqueror") and his relation to the other Geoffrey (ie: his ancestor"). Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still find this a bit confusing, largely as exactly the same name is wikilinked twice, but I now see linked to different articles & the fact that the earlier Mandeville is mentioned second is a bit much for my brain.&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Constable be wikilinked to Constable or similar?
 * It's currently linked (in the lead, architecture section, and the foundation and early history section) to Constable of the Tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is all thr information in the Barons Revolt(s) section covered by ref 72?
 * Yep. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be worth doubling up the ref?
 * Ok, done. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I got confused about Henry III who appears to have died in 1261 but won a battle in 1265
 * Where does it says Henry III died in 1261? He held parliament in the Tower in 1261 and nicked the castle back from the barons but I've missed the bit which says he died then. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I misread (1236 and 1261) as his birth & death dates, which are given in the previous para as (1216–1272), rather than the dates of the parliaments.


 * Should Barbican be wikilinked?
 * It was linked on the first occurence, but this issue was raised by Yllosubmarine. I think in an article this long it's possible (likely even) that readers will skip bits, so as the mentions of the barbican are widely spaced I've linked it twice more. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should coin clipping be wikilinked?
 * Yes and done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What does "an upturn in fortune in warfare" mean?
 * Edward II was not as successful a commander as his father, Edward I. During his reign political problems turned Edward II's attentions away from Scotland; they took advantage of this and raided northern England. There was also the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Edward the III was much more successful, with the battles of Neville's Cross, Crécy and Poitiers all going in England's favour. As the Tower did not play a direct role in the wars with Scotland and France (although it held prisoners), I have greatly reduced even the general summary I just gave so as not to bog down the article. Hence "an upturn in fortune" simply means that England was more successful in the field of battle. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm if the phrase is still to be used could it be clarified as "an upturn in fortune in warfare for the English" otherwise the upturn could just be the technology of warfare getting better or becoming more "popular".&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've ditched the phrase and gone for something different. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should "Tudor period" be wikilinked to Tudor dynasty?
 * I've linked it to Tudor period. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is "The Tower's reputation for torture and imprisonment derives largely from 16th-century religious propagandists and 19th-century romanticists." supported by any references?
 * Yes. It's Impey and Parnell who say this, but as this might come as a surprise to readers it definitely requires an obvious citation so I've moved it. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference to support "112 people were executed on the hill over a period of 400 years"?
 * This is pretty much the same situation as the above issue, and I've done the same again. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A currency conversion into modern equivalents is provided with "£4,000 (about £460,000 as of 2008)" in one section but is not done elsewhere
 * It is slightly inconsistent as the source doesn't go back before 1264. However, I think it's worth sacrificing consistency here as I believe it's a useful tool for the reader. While I can't say I put a whole lot of faith in conversions of this sort, it's useful to give the reader an idea of the order of sums being talked about. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great fan of them either however if it is useful to "give the reader an idea of the order of sums being talked about" in one instance why not do it for "a cost of £300" earlier in the same paragraph, and £2,881 1s 10d, "costing £21,000" etc in "expansion"?&mdash; Rod talk 07:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that one. Added. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but there is still "out of an estimated £7,000" and "1216 to 1227 nearly £10,000 was.." in the expansion section which don't have similar conversions. Not sure if it is needed for "holder was paid 12d a day" in Crown Jewels or "to pay fourpence a day" and "admission cost three half-pence" in menagerie.&mdash; Rod talk 08:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Should Hanoverian dynasty be wikilinked to House of Hanover?
 * Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference for "one of the lions was accused of biting a soldier"?
 * Yes, it at the end of the paragraph but as it's an odd claim I've doubled up the reference. "Accused" sounds odd, surely you'd know if you'd been bitten by a lion! But that's what the source says. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference to support "is reputedly the most haunted building in England"?
 * I've doubled up the reference. As I said to Brianboulton above, I wasn't the one who added that but it's sourced and the user who added it has a track record of providing sourced information. With that said, I am procuring a copy of the relevant book so I can get the relevant page number and double check the claim for myself, but in the meantime I'm assuming they got it right. Nev1 (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - An absolutely awesome read. Comprehensive (afaik) article with nice images, well-written prose, and a certain quality to it which I feel make it an FA. Excellent work.  ceran  thor 22:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still somewhat uneasy about the fact that there's no organized discussion of the Tower garrison. The Constable gets mentioned in the lede, and then we sort of drift away, with a passing mention of the Lieutenant and then the introduction of the Yeoman Warders. Some critical facts get lost in the shuffle—for instance, I just found out that both the Constable and the Lieutenant have been non-resident since the Glorious Revolution, whereas the article gives the impression, by omission, that the Constable is still in regular command at the Tower. I'd be happy to set up a spinoff like Garrison of the Tower of London to keep this article from collapsing under details like the Gentleman Porter taking people's shirts, but I think it's worth a paragraph to get readers oriented as to who the Constable, Lieutenant, etc. are in the rest of the article. Choess (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Although discussion is not concentrated in one place in the article, you'll notice that the Constable, Lieutenant, Yeoman Warders are mentioned. They are not lumped together in one paragraph because the article approaches the subject chronologically. You may have missed it, but the position of Constable is explained in the last paragraph of the foundation and early history section. Essentially it was the Lieutenant's job to take over the Constable's duties while he wasn't around, so I don't see a need to hammer that home as it's already explained as well. It's also mentioned that the Yeoman Warders began as the Royal Bodyguard, their role changed so they mainly looked after prisoners, and today they provide guided tours. I don't believe more is necessary or desirable as it would clog up the article. The Gentleman Porter, if he deserves mention at all, should go into the proposed subarticle, not here. You'll also notice that the article explains the role of the "keeper of the jewels, armouries and other things". I think a good outcome would be for a spinoff article to be created, perhaps under the title you suggested, where each position can be detailed in full without unnecessary cluttering up the main article. Nev1 (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Oppose for now. The writing needs polishing, and I feel that less important issues have been emphasized at the expense of central ones, such as the use of the Tower as a notorious prison. This is an issue that needs its own article, but I think this page needs to say more about it summary-style. I also wonder whether there are enough academic sources in the article. Other points: telling us in the lead that only seven people were executed within the Tower itself appears to minimize the large numbers of prisoners who were executed overall, whether in the Tower or nearby, and the article never does tell us (that I can find) who the seven were. I feel bad opposing, because this is obviously a substantial piece of work for which the writers are to be congratulated, but I feel that it's a draft away from being an FA. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Nev, I've been told before that long exchanges may put off other reviewers, so I'm moving the rest of this discussion to the talk page. Either yourself or the delegates should feel free to revert if you disagree. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Support An excellent article fulfilling all FA criteria. I do believe there should be a specific section regarding the tower's use as a prison, per above. But overall I believe this article is FA quality.Teeninvestor (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - I share the above concerns about the prose (which aren't insurmountable), but I can't really fault the level of detail in this article. I'm continuing to copyedit it sporadically but right now I'm happy to lend my support to this article. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - I feel rather like PoD just above, but am ready to support, although I hope the artic;le will continue to improve. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comments  - beginning a read-through now. I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go, and please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It would have visually dominated the surrounding area and... - not sure if the "visually" is essential here. I am inclined to drop it but am in two minds...


 * (from the Tower's foundation) the innermost ward was probably filled with timber buildings - the bracketed bit jars a little - I'd place it at the end and make it more temporal maybe (around the time of the Tower's foundation (??))


 * FWIW, I agree with SV about repetitive text. I do realise some repetition is necessary to avoid ambiguity, but there are some instances where some rejigging can assist with reducing this. Also, many sentences err on the too-short side for comfortable reading. I think these are eminently and imminently fixable, and am trying to remedy this.


 * Tentative support pending looking at the above two specific queries - I have done some massaging of the prose. I can't see any deal-breaker clangers left, but I suspect there is still some room for some fine-tuning. I can't see any glaring omission comprehensivenesswise. Good luck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While the castle would have dominated the surrounding area in more than one way, the source does single out its visual impact. I agree with your comment about sentence in the inner ward section, so have rearranged it. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Shortly after the death of Edward IV in 1483, the infamous murder of the "Princes in the Tower" took place. When Edward V was crowned King he was just 12 years old. His uncle, Richard Duke of Gloucester, declared himself his protector and confined Edward to the Tower of London along with his brother Richard. The details surrounding their deaths are unclear, but they were murdered some time in the autumn of 1483. The Duke of Gloucester then proclaimed himself King Richard III. Bodies thought to belong to them were discovered in 1674 when the 12th-century forebuilding at the entrance to the White Tower was demolished. The incident is one of the most famous events associated with the Tower of London. Opposition to Richard escalated until he was defeated at the Battle of Bosworth in 1489 by the Lancastrian Henry Tudor. He ascended to the throne as Henry VII.[98]" has multiple problems:
 * Support Comment: The paragraph about the Princes in the Tower


 * Edward V was never crowned.
 * Richard III did not "declare himself Protector"; this was done by the King's Council and was uncontroversial and expected.
 * In the preceding paragraph it correctly says that Henry VI was "probably murdered" in the Tower. The point of the Princes' story is that they disappeared; i.e., they were probably murdered (though not necessarily in the Tower), but no medievalist will say: "The details surrounding their deaths are unclear, but they were murdered some time in the autumn of 1483", as in the article. Why not write they were probably murdered, like Henry VI? Something like: "Shortly after the death of Edward IV in 1483, the infamous murder of the "Princes in the Tower" is traditionally believed to have taken place."?
 * Richard III was crowned on 6 July 1483, he did not proclaim himself King in the autumn of 1483, but on 26 June, when the Princes were probably still alive (there was an attempt to free them at the end of July, so perhaps they were killed after and because of that: ODNB: "Richard III" by Rosemary Horrox).
 * Battle of Bosworth happened in 1485, not 1489.

Perhaps less political detail would be a solution; such as the paragraph is the chronology is muddled and the facts are either wrong or presented too much as if uncontroversial, which is not the case. Please note that this is not WP:FRINGE. It's absolutely academic mainstream to say they were probably murdered, as no one has ever known what happened. ("Essentially the bones are a red herring. They cannot settle the question of whether Richard III murdered the princes.", says A.J. Pollard in Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, 1997 ed., p. 127). Buchraeumer (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've made the corrections. In light of the changes, do you think detail should be remove to avoid confusion as you originally suggested? Nev1 (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine changes. It's o.k. now as regards content with me.
 * *I've still have a problem, though, with "The incident is one of the most famous events associated ..." because it directly follows the sentence about the discovery of the bones, so grammatically it would mean this discovery was the famous thing, when it's of course the murder. I realize such things may be a sources nightmare, but if possible it would be worthwhile to mention that Shakespeare made a play out of the story (implying this contributed much to its modern fame).
 * In the lead it says "The zenith of the castle's use as a prison came in the 16th and 17th centuries, when many political or religious figures, such as the Princes in the Tower and Elizabeth I before she became queen, were held within its walls."; a) the Princes was 15th century; b) perhaps it would be logical to mention a religious figure; to me it almost sounds as if Elizabeth was a religious figure (Cranmer perhaps?). Alternatively perhaps "unwanted", or "disgraced" figures, or "figures fallen into disgrace" or something similar? Buchraeumer (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved the sentence about the incident being one of the most famous events associated with the Tower. As it is particularly well known, I think it does belong in the lead, but after I copy edited the bit about the Tower's zenith as a prison so it wasn't misleading it didn't really fit anywhere else. It's now immediately before the bit about the Tudors. What do you think? Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Much improved! I think it is a nicely illustrated, very comprehensive article. Buchraeumer (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.