Talk:The Tower House

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alifadlallah26.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Haunted?

Any reason why there's a 'see also' link to 'haunted houses'? Are there any reports of Tower House being haunted? I would have thought that it was more noteworthy that this is/was the London home of Richard Harris and Jimmy Page. 80.176.88.21 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly never read of its being haunted. I also agree that its ownership by Richard Harris and Jimmy Page is notable and don't understand why this section was removed when the article was truncated. I'll re-instate/re-word when I can. KJP1 (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the text because it was unsourced - make sure that it's reliably sourced if it goes back in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, have sought to give my statements sourced back-up. Regards KJP1 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Harris actually lived there until at least 1974. I lived 2 blocks from the house at the time and would see Richard working his garden sometimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.0.90 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew he owned it but "Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry" wanted a reference. I'll amend the text to reflect your dates. I don't know when Jimmy Page bought it, only that it was sometime in the 70's. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Note 43 on page 409 of WB&THVD states that Page bought it in 1974 for £350,000 outbidding David Bowie! EricPolymath (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Trivia

Not sure re. the trivia section. It's not sourced. And am puzzled as to when exactly an eight-year old boy would have been buried in the tower, considering the date of construction. Lastly, I think the house had a nursery in Burges's time, although quite why is puzzling, considering that Burgess was most unlikely to have children. Would suggest removal of the section.

Further checking shows that Burges built two nurseries, a Day Nusery and a Night Nursery. So it seems unlikely that Harris would have constructed a third. Have therefore removed the section. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Floor Area

"its floor-plan being little more than 50 feet square".

Can anybody check this citation? A very small studio flat would have a floor area of around 200 square foot:- 50 would be a broom cupboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imogenpickles (talk • contribs) 09:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Have checked the reference and it is right. The full entry, at the very beginning of page 308, reads "Tower House is not a mansion. It measures little more than 50 ft square." Additionally, an illustration I have of the House, from the Building News of 1880, contains a floorplan which shows the front of the house as being 50 feet in length. Is the issue one of teminology? Does Crook mean it's 50 ft wide by 50 feet long, i.e. some 2500 square feet? KJP1 (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If the front of the building is 50 ft long then 2500 square feet would make much more sense... That would make it about the size of a 6/7 bedroom house rather than the size of a small shed! --Imogenpickles (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

FA

So how far is the article from FA quality? Randomuser112 (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to know. I'm going to submit it to GA this week. Do you know any good sources? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did some work on references. I think the article is pretty complete, but there's one issue - refs 31, 37, 39, 41 and 46 need exact page numbers. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article claims the street is not open to public. I'm fairly sure this is not correct. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Where does the article claim that? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, misunderstanding on my part. The article claims that the building is not open to public, not the street. Randomuser112 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, well on its way (now). With a bit of work and polish I think it is achievable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Will review. May take a few days before I give first comments. Tim riley (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't approve of GA reviewers who think their job is to rewrite an article, but as we are old comrades in Wikipedia I take the liberty of setting out some points that you might want to address. There's nothing to frighten the horses here, and only one thing serious enough to stand in the way of promotion to GA, and even that will be easily dealt with. But you might want to ponder these points before I get stuck into the formal review.

• Lead
  • "the house was substantially built" – does that mean mostly or solidly?

Done

• • Burges' – surprised to see American form of possessive, rather than the English (Burges's) as used in the Burges article. I see you use the English form lower down (in 1970s to present, Exterior and design, and Furniture) but you should do so throughout, I think.

Done

• • Sir John Betjeman – he wasn't Sir at the time, and you should remove all the "Sir"s here and below.

Done

• • "actor Richard Harris … guitarist Jimmy Page" – I bang on about this interminably, but without a definite article in front of the job title these are either Americanisms or tabloidese. Most unsuitable for a high Victorian aesthete.

Done

• • "Victoria & Albert Museum" – why the ampersand rather than the correct "and"?

Done

• History
  • "The house descended" – strange verb. You mean he inherited it?

Done

• • "Colonel T. H. Minshall DSO" – we don't usually put in post-nominal letters in mid-text

Done

• • "washstand to fellow Victorian architecture" – another missing definite article

Done

• • "Betjeman gave them to Waugh to placate his wife, Penelope" – whose wife was she? (JB's, I know, but from the wording it could be either)

Done

• • "The Irish actor Richard Harris" – is his nationality relevant?

Done

• • "Liberace had bought the house but had not put down a deposit" – in that case he hadn't bought the house, surely?

Done

• • "slept in its garden" – that's a tease: either explain what the Hell he was doing sleeping there or don't mention it at all

Done. I suspect he was sleeping off a hang-over, but have no source and it's not essential

• • 'little bastards' – not clear why single not double quotes here

Done

• • [10],[25] – having a comma between the two refs looks rather peculiar

Done

• Exterior and design
  • 'like other fashions… – single quotes

Done

• • "The architect Richard Norman Shaw" – This should be piped to show either "R. Norman Shaw" or just "Norman Shaw". He never used the "Richard". See here and this is from a letter he wrote to my office (before my time, thank you): "I think I must have been in a frisky and extravagant frame of mind when I saw the suggested frontages on plan A adjoining Vigo Street…as a stupid muddled headed old architect I find myself always longing for a general scheme…pray pardon my prosiness and believe me to remain, yours very faithfully, R. Norman Shaw."

Done

• • "Cardiff Castle" – already blue-linked. No need for another one here. Other duplicate links lower down are Zodiac settle, Geoffrey Chaucer, Victoria and Albert Museum (without the ampersand this time), Woodland House, Little Holland House, Zodiac settle, Great Bookcase (twice), Charles Handley-Read (twice) and Richard Popplewell Pullan.

Done, and the repeated links to the Park House and Castell Coch.

• Interior
  • "If Burges shunned exterior decoration at the Tower House, he more than compensated internally." – That's wholly POV unless you can find a source that justifies such a large claim. This is the one thing on this list that really must be dealt with before promotion to GA.

Done. I think the quotation is actually rather better than my POV

• • "The room's decorative scheme is 'the tender passion of Love'" – more single quotes.

Done

• • "Carved figures from Geoffrey Chaucer's Roman de la Rose" – er? It's a medieval French work. Chaucer may or may not have translated some or all of it into English, but you mustn't call it his work.

Done

• • "Geoffrey Chaucer's The House of Fame" – as this is his third mention we can manage without his given name.

Done

• • "mementoes" – I thought the plural is mementos, but I see the OED admits both.

Done. In line with the esteemed reviewer's wishes

• • "'the Storming of the Castle of Love'" – more single quotes

Done

• • "The bed is painted blood red and features a panel depicting Sleeping Beauty" – God bless and save us! (No action needed. I just needed to blow off steam to avoid spontaneous combustion.)

Noted, nothing done. I was sitting in St Paul's under the dome about a month ago and looking at the contrast between the plain Wren nave and the late-Victorian decorated choir and apse. It really is astonishing - like two quite different buildings. What would it have looked like had Burges had free rein?

• Furniture
  • "Much of Burges' early furniture … was originally made for Burges' office" – "his office", perhaps?

Done, not by me

• • "and subsequently moved to the Tower House" – the earlier "was" covers this perfectly grammatically; all the same, a second "was" would remove the surreal image of the washstand strolling across from Buckingham Street to the Tower House

Done

• • "Bedford in Bedford" – seems a bit excessive

Done

• Scholarship
  • "Matthew Williams'" – another American possessive

Done

• References
  • "The title of Callan's book is shown as "Square Richard Harris", which I think is probably incorrect.

Um. It is incorrect, but I can't see it in the reference itself. Help!

• • "UK Stationery Office?" – Who ever heard of such a thing. Either Her Majesty's Stationery Office or just the Stationery Office.

Done

• • Not sure what your criterion is for linking to authors' articles from the book list. If (like me) you link only to those not already linked in the text you should remove Danny La Rue's.

Not done, but only because I need to work out how

Now understood and done

No rush for replies on these points. I know KJP is away for a few days, and as I haven't begun the formal review there's no need to put this on hold. I'll look in again after the weekend. – Tim riley (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! Yeah I think it's best to wait until KJP returns but I'll try to address some of the more minor concerns over the weekend.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Tim - you are an absolute star. A quick scan doesn't suggest anything that can't be fixed. But my partner will lynch me if I spend our 20th anniversary in Prague doing a Wikipedia review! So, it will have to wait until next week. Thanks and all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Tim - Hope I've addressed your preliminary comments. Great to be working with yourself, the Doctor and Gareth again. Look forward to receiving the main GAR comments. Gareth did the great majority of the work on expanding the Tower House article, so I'll check with him as to how he wants to handle these. And if we get through this, how about reviewing Castell Coch. The Doctor thinks we should tackle this next - at least, as a complete rebuilding from virtually nothing, your sensibilities will be less offended than by some of the great man's "renovations" of earlier classical structures! KJP1 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well, that was easy! Clearly meets the GA criteria, in my judgment, and looks like a potential FAC to me. – Tim riley (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Easy if you don't do your job properly perhaps. Eric Corbett 20:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Errare humanum est, Eric, for us fallible mortals. Tim riley (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A request for images!!

If the guitar legend Jimmy Page or anybody else likely to have photographs of the interior read this and are willing to provide free photographs please post here and something can be arranged. The interior looks fantastic and we could really use a set of decent colour images of the rooms and details of the furnishings to do the article justice. The genius of Burges needs to be shown off to the world!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Citations

That authoritative editor User:Eric Corbett has pointed out that there are nine references, viz, 3, 15, 18, 21, 31, 49, 51, 52 and 54, that are not satisfactory, and need to be amended. Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've cleared a few of these, but some still remain outstanding. 3, 18, 51, 52 and 54 need a brief check of the primary source (probably) to confirm which publishing date is correct - and a subsequent tweak of the date either in the source or the citation. 49 points to an undated publication by "Osband", but there is no indication in the sources who or what this refers to. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@KJP1: has the books, probably best he checks them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'll also add that there are no citations using the Minshall source, so if there are no other citations pointing to it, then the ref should be taken out. (I'll leave that all to those who know the subject much better than I!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: I suspect part of the problem is that two different books by the same author were published in 1981 and KJP seems to be having trouble distinguishing the two in the markup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the problem is it needs to be fixed. Eric Corbett 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good work KJP: only FN7 to go. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The responsibility for the errors in the article citations is mine, and I apologise for this and for any embarrassment caused. They have occurred principally, but not exclusively, as a result of my poor technical skills in being unable to properly distinguish between the two Mordaunt Crook books published in 1981, the centenary year of Burges's death, William Burges and the High Victorian Dream and The Strange Genius of William Burges. I have now sought to address this, and hope I have done so to the satisfaction of all. If I haven't, just let me know and I'll try again. The reassessment of the article also threw up a couple of other issues; the lack of an Osmand citation, the absence of a Minshall reference and, most importantly, an error re.the exhibition in which the Great Bookcase was displayed. I have sought to address these as well. The discussion has been very helpful and I think it has improved the article for the benefit of readers. Unwisely perhaps, I'll end with a personal comment and suggest we could have achieved the same result in a more courteous and collegiate way. KJP1 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Just wandering in off the street

Hi, I have a sad life so I'm stalking Eric, but is that really "French Gothic Revival style" looks more like some sort of Flemish Revival style to me? I'm sure the reffs say French Gothic, but it doesn't smell like French.  Giano  13:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment...I love the moniker "Wrenassaince" and "Dutch Revival" similarly applied to nearby Queen Anne houses. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me very much of Tiffany House, New York. I forget who designed that, but it looks like a cross of Norman Shaw and Henry Hobson Richardson. However, that was built in 1882, whereas Tower House was built in four years earlier - so it is quite interesting.  Giano  17:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is no mention of 'French' in the listing details [1]; I wonder if it might be best to loose that French designation? I expect it came from the design of the tower, but as it doesn't have any tourelles or overtly French features it's really just a 'Gothicuesque' feature.  Giano  09:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just realised that it's in Stourton, James (2012). Great Houses of London. Francis Lincoln. ISBN 978-0-7112-3366-9. a fact which is only briefly alluded to in the article. If anyone wants a ref for anything I have the book so give me a shout; it does contain on P221, the marvellous quote "Tower House is the most colourful and wackily decorated house of the Victorian age." That's a pretty old statemtn, the authors might feel that's worthy of inclusion.  Giano  10:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding French/Flemmish inspiration - Sourton p.222: "...a 15th century townhouse of French inspiration which looks northern European on account of its red brickwork." I'm not sure I completely agree with that, but it is ref for French to remain.  Giano  10:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

High importance

I'm not sure it is really high importance broadly speaking. The Ritz Hotel, London for instance is rated low importance!♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hum - I looked at the descriptions for High and they read "Subject contributes a depth of knowledge" and "Very important buildings and architects". I do think that describes The Tower House, particularly given it scores both for architect and for building. Perhaps your Ritz is too low, although its feeble Grade II listing hardly places it on a par with The Tower House! I shall ask on the Architecture Portal. KJP1 (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've reassessed the Ritz to mid for architecture and top for hotels. Perhaps you're right though that Grade I listed buildings by default are high importance!♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the question. But the Importance ratings do seem a bit arbitrary. To take just a few examples, Belton House, Holkham Hall and Little Moreton Hall are all Mid Importance whilst Bramall Hall is High Importance. I'd struggle to justify that, either in terms of architectural merit or historical significance. KJP1 (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of them are disputable. I think I can agree on the Tower House being low importance for London but high importance for architecture, being a Grade I listed building and notable work of William Burges. But my initial thought was it's a relatively small house and not quite as prominent as something like Cardiff Castle for instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Size isn't everything! KJP1 (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Tower House

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Tower House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110130129/http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/EA_submission_case_4_2010_11.ashx.pdf to http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/EA_submission_case_4_2010_11.ashx.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150423174214/http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/2010-11_Annual_Report_Export_of_Objects_of_Cultural_Interest.pdf to http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/2010-11_Annual_Report_Export_of_Objects_of_Cultural_Interest.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The Mirror

Given that this, [2], is an almost complete lift, you’d think that Mr Kingsley would have given us a credit. KJP1 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

One would think so, but it seldom happens. People like to make snide comments about Wikipedia, but seldom admit to quoting it. It’s amazing how when a country house or well known building appears in a newspaper I often get a sense of déjà vu before realising it’s because I wrote it word for word. Recently I had an unsolicited brochure for a cultural trip to St Petersburg and realised I had written the Winter Palace blurb completely. If only they paid us! Giano (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Very dispiriting. I often think the public think these articles magic themselves out of thin air - such is the incredulity that I've experienced on their faces when I tell people I write them! I've dreamt so much of this house and hope we've played a little part in its reuniting with the furniture in Bedford and its appearance on a thousand future hidden London Insta posts. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No Swan So Fine - What I’d really like to see is the house in the hands of the NT/HE and opened as a Burges museum, with the furniture from the Higgins etc. reinstated. Whether that will ever happen however… it’s a very valuable piece of real estate. KJP1 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I quite concur. The recent opening of the Thematic House is hopeful. So many secret stunners though, I'm not sure Debenham House has ever been open to the public. Interesting discussion here [3], our article is still a little thin. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Zodiac Table

• [4]

Danny La Rue

No Swan So Fine, Dr. Blofeld- I’ve never liked what you rightly describe as “Danny’s nonsense”, and wonder if we should just take it out? There is the oddity of why Burges built himself Day and Night nurseries at the house, but that’s not connected to D L-R’s burbling, or Harris’ musings. That said, I know Dr. B and I differ on historic house hauntings, and I did go through the considerable pain of buying and part-reading Danny La Rue’s autobiography to ensure it was properly sourced!!! KJP1 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a great read isn't it! I think it adds colour to the - admittedly celeb heavy - house and is the primary source for that uncertain period. I wouldn't mind if it comes out and is moved to Danny's page however. Talking of celebrity interviews... No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)