Jump to content

Talk:Cow Tower, Norwich

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 04:21, 31 January 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "GA" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Architecture}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The "Symbol" shown on this page is the symbol of English Heritage, not the bloody Cow Tower

[edit]

See http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.128.192 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion...

[edit]

I've gone through and given the article a thorough expansion; everything should be well cited now, but a copyedit would be useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cow Tower, Norwich/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 00:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this article. I made a couple minor edits to correct what I thought were clear typos and only have a few minor comments to make:

Headings

  • Pedantic I know, but are the right dashes being used in the headings?

Lead

  • Should "artillery tower" be wikilinked (perhaps a potential article if it does not exist already)?
  • Should "parapets" be wikilinked?

14th century

  • "...and then the "tower in the Hospital meadows"...": should "tower in the Hospital meadows" be in title case?

15th - 16th centuries

  • "...with the Crown occasionally issuing instructions given it should be repaired.": Is there something missing here, or should "given" be deleted?

Architecture

  • "The river bends around about 1 metre (3 ft 3 in) from the base of the tower, and its base may...": close repetition of base.

Other stuff

  • References look OK as does their formatting.
  • Duplicate link: Southampton.
  • No dab links
  • Checklink tool does not identify any issues.
  • Image tags look OK.

Overall, I found this an interesting and well written article with only the few minor nitpicks mentioned above. I'll check back for your response in a couple of days. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]