Talk:King Alfred's Tower

King Alfred's Tower has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

King Alfred's Tower is part of the National Trust properties in Somerset series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 26, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
December 6, 2015	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Memorials / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Military memorials and cemeteries task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Somerset Low‑importance

	Somerset portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copyvio?

Moved to temp page to facilitate copyright infringement-free editing while not compromising Wikiepdia with copyrighted text. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Chris Nelms of AlfredsTower.info via e-mail:

“

Several years ago [sic] the original Wikipedia page on King Alfred's Tower was lifted verbatim from my website; I have no idea by whom. Equally I have no idea who is behind the existing entry.

I am a believer in using the internet to share information freely. My Alfred's Tower website has grown largely thanks to the generous contributions of many others so I am not at all precious about my own modest efforts. I endeavour to verify all the facts that appear on the site and I am happy for any of this information to be repeated on Wikipedia. My only proviso is in the use of images, several of which are copyright yet have been shamelessly taken to appear on other websites (not Wikipedia) without permission. I wrote the text of the site and am happy unconditionally for it to be reproduced but I would ask you to exercise caution in the use of images from the site.

”

-- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset v Wiltshire

Does anyone know why this is categorised in Wiltshire when Images of England clearly lists it in the civil parish of Brewham in South Somerset. I will change this but if anyone knows better or has other sources which argue please discuss here.— Rod ^talk 19:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:King Alfred's Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Godot13 (talk · contribs) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article criteria

Clearly written, good prose; reliable sources (websites and published books) with inline citations; good overview with appropriate detail; neutral; no apparent edit conflicts (stable); appropriate use of images; no apparent copyright violation.

Minor comments/suggestions

Add citations to

(in History) – “The tower was designed in 1765 by Henry Flitcroft, the notable 18th century Palladian architect” and “Building began in 1769 or early 1770, and was completed in 1772 at an estimated cost of between £5,000 and £6,000.”
(in Architecture) – one or two in the first paragraph.

This is my first GAR, if I've made any errors or done this incorrectly, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 06:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added a few references but in the process found one paragraph and part of another were copyvios from http://www.alfredstower.info/. Although there is a note on the talk page allowing this I still think it is better to to copy text word for word. I want to check further and will do this when I get back from work.— Rod ^talk 07:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now checked and there is just one sentence which is the same as the source site, because of the note on the talk page and the additional material I think this is OK. However it was done in 2007 and I think this was before the OTRS system was introduced. It might be worth asking at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for more expert advice.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is your first GAR it might be worth asking at GAN for a second opinion as my other GA nominations normally have more comments and questions (particularly about prose).— Rod ^talk 19:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that, if you want. Just ping me if you agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

Prose

You should probably add that the tower is also known as Stourton Tower.

Done— Rod ^talk 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the Christopher Hussey quote should probably appear in the references. (unless it is covered by the Holt citation directly above it).

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, it should have a footnote and/or link to the source. (BTW, Country Living should be italicized as a magazine title). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've italicised & added a citation but I'm unab;l;e to find a copy to give the title of the article or volume number.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic metric/imperial measurement conversion is creating a grammatical problem in some instances where the measurement word should be singular. For example "28 miles (45.1 km) footpath" should read "28 mile (45.1 km) footpath" or "300 kilograms (47 st) stone" should be "300 kilogram (47 st) stone".

I've changed some of these but may have missed one or two.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Searching EBSCO Information Services provides no articles.
Searching the Burney Collection Newspapers (17-18th century London) show some references to Henry Hoare, Esq., a Fleet Street banker in the 1760's and 1770's (and it appears that Henry Flitcroft seems to have been the victim of a reckless carriage driver on 14 October 1772)
Searching "Alfred's Tower" JSTOR produced the Turner article you cite. Searching "Stourton Tower" also produces brief references to the tower being constructed "where Alfred the Great raised his standard against the Danes in 879" (p. 200)

I've added that one but interestingly we now have a conflict in the date of the battle between 878 and 879.— Rod ^talk 18:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turner's article has some useful quotes/information (below are verbatim quotes)
- Alfred's Tower, Hoare insisted, was to "Crown or Top all." It crowns the western escarpment physically, and so marks the culmination of the tour of Stourhead, but it is clear from the letters in which Hoare broached his scheme that something more was meant. He conceived Alfred's Tower in response to current conditions of political violence and uncertainty. The Seven Years War intervened .between the two main periods of Stourhead's growth. Hoare's letters show that the tower and its inscription were a gesture of solidarity with those political forces working for peace (pp. 76-77)
- Alfred's Tower was meant to make the visitor conscious both of the arrangement of the landscape and of the political condition of the land. (p.77)

- - I think these points are pretty much covered in the article.— Rod ^talk 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these quotes/information might be useful to work in.--Godot13 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it still feels too light I will be happy to get a second opinion. I just think that given the lack of available sources, you've done a pretty good job with what you've got...--Godot13 (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference--Godot13 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - added.— Rod ^talk 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last reference I'll send (it seemed to be the most revealing about the parties involved). Not trying to inundate you, it becomes a bit of a challenge to find the best sources...--Godot13 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this in to support a possible reason for the delay in construction. There isn't that much on the tower, if writing about the wider Stourhead estate it would be really useful.— Rod ^talk 08:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last comments

The article looks good. I've done some very minor copy-editing. Two questions:

Ref#11 is the source for the top 10 meters of the building sustaining damage by an aircraft impact. Is there a source for the specific type of plane which you mention in the article?

I've added a couple of refs. It's also detailed on this forum but I don't think I can use that as a reliable source.— Rod ^talk 07:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clairfy - is the inscription you quote at the very end the same one mentioned in the paragrpah above it, or is this different?--Godot13 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that text is over the door.— Rod ^talk 07:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third party comments

Hi there! Godot mentioned this review to me (you can see my reply there) and I've been having a little look. One thing is sticking out at me: you don't actually define the subject in the lede. It may be redundant, but you should clearly state that it is a tower, or a tower built as a folly, or whatever. See WP:LEDE, particularly "[A lead] should define the topic..." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - added to lead.— Rod ^talk 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass--Godot13 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Change: Ethandun to Edington

The Battle of Edington article calls it the Battle of Edington; the King Alfred's Tower article calls the same battle the Battle of Ethandun (User Dzw49 having changed Edington to Ethandun in the King Alfred's Tower article in February, 2009). On the Talk page for King Alfred's Tower I'm suggesting the reference(s) there be changed back to Edington and I'm mentioning it on the Battle of Edington Talk page because there has been much discussion about Edington v Ethandun

Frans Fowler (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated on the Battle of Edington article several times. The conclusion was most modern historians now agree that Edington was the site of the battle, based largely on the trail of evidence that we have outlined in the "Location of the battle" section. The use of the Old English name Ethandun (and variations), is still in use on monuments and works of fiction, so there should still be a reference to it. eg: Battle of Edington previously known as Ethandun, according to MoS Ethandun should be italicised as it is not an English word.Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]