Talk:Cow Tower, Norwich

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

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

Expansion...

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)

GA Review

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)

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?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

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

• Both are now wikilinked (I've found a temporary spot for artillery tower to link to).Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

14th century

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

• It's not in title case in any of the originals, so I'd gone for a direct quote and keeping in regular case. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

15th - 16th centuries

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

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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.

• Link deduped. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• Should all be done, and thanks for the review! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• All good, passing as GA. Zawed (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)