This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Public Art, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of public art on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I just been to the tower, and on the top most floor they say it's anywhere between 279 and 281. There's a scale there along those numbers. I believe this figure of 273 on wikipedia means the floor right below it, which is covered by windows. Anyone knows what's the correct figure? Should we fix it? --Caue (T | C) 03:03, Thursday 2013-03-21 (UTC)
The article's structural problem is in fact largely my doing. I came to this article because I was doing a substantial rewrite of Gustave Eiffel: I wanted to avoid unecessary overlap. I was very shocked to see that there was absolutely nothing in this article on the origins & construction of the Tower, so I wrote the sections, putting them as part of history. Of course it is impossible to do the construction without a fair amount on the design of the tower: howere a fair amount of the material now under design dooes not have a place in the history section.
I'm also having a go at the references, particularly removing all the entirely useless citations of the French SETE site which only dump you on the homepage, and where possible inserting a citation to the appropriate page of the English langage page of the same site.TheLongTone (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The section on the lifts is a mess, mixing the history of their fitting and subsequent replacement with a very unclear and incomplete technical description. It is also entirely unreferenced. Is there a case for splitting this section off into a separate article?TheLongTone (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)typos
As the article states, due to its architectural style and stature the Tower was criticised by some of France's leading intellectuals at the time. Is this significant enough to be briefly mentioned in the lead? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd say so, especially since many of them changed their minds once it was built, & it contrasts with the present iconic status of the structure.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)