Talk:New Brighton Tower/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) 16:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"The 1,000-tonne (1,000,000 kg) tower stood 567 feet (173 m) high ...". It makes no sense to convert from one metric unit to another, and the order of presentation of units ought to be standardised. Metric/Imperial or Imperial/Metric? The source actually says "1,000 tons", presumably long tons, so where did this figure of 1,000 tonnes come from? It's also talking only about the quantity of steel, not the total weight of the tower.
No longer an issue, offending text removed Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"... housing the tower ballroom ..." vs. "The Beatles played at the Tower ballroom 27 times ...". Which is it? Tower ballroom, tower ballroom, or Tower Ballroom?
No longer an issue, consistently Tower Ballroom Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Since it was so close to Liverpool, The Beatles played at the Tower ballroom 27 times ...". As opposed to 28 times, or 26 times? They didn't play there because it was close to Liverpool anyway, they played because they were getting paid.
No longer an issue, offending text removed.
Need to explain why it was demolished, not just that it was.
Thanks Eric. All the above points have now hopefully been addressed. Bazonka (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalisation and naming still isn't consistent. In the caption to the lead image we have "... the four-storey red-brick tower building", but in the Concerts section we have "Little Richard and the Rolling Stones also performed at the Tower Building ...". Also, in the Ballroom section we have "A fire broke out on the 3rd storey of the Tower Buildings on 20 January 1955 ...". Eric Corbett 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed, but the capitalisation was deliberate: "Tower Building" is the name of the building, whereas "tower building" is a description of what it is - the building for the tower. I don't see why this is a problem, but I've changed it anyway. Bazonka (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about Tower Buildings, was that deliberate too? If you don't understand why it's important to be consistent then we can close this review right now, as not listed. Eric Corbett 20:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one. Of course I understand why we need to use consistent names. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones and Little Richard both played at the Tower Ballroom, which was the name of the venue within the Tower Building. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox gives one of the main contractors as "Peters and Sons Folowing"
Weird. Now fixed. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attractions

"A single entrance fee of one shilling (or a season ticket for 10s 6d) ..." Was that an annual season ticket, was the tower and its grounds open all year?
The article specifically states that the tower has re-opened for the season in May, which implies that it closes out of season. It gives opening times on a Sunday and advertises "12 hours continuous amusement", which also implies the ability to close the tower and gardens in the evenings. It does not explain what is included in the season ticket, just the price. Given the price difference between an entrance fee and a season ticket (10.5x), I think it is reasonable to assume that it's an annual season ticket, which allows as many returns as the person would like whilst the tower remains open. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've found a couple of adverts for attractions in New Brighton which advertise as being open "Whitsuntide until mid-October", which explains the relevance of Whitsun to the resort. Worm^TT(talk) 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"On 7 September 1909 two visitors were left stranded at the top of the tower as the final lift car of the night descended without them." Doesn't seem like much of an attraction to me.
Perhaps not, but it took place in an attraction - something attracted those visitors there. I've been racking my brains to think of an alternative word to "attractions" and the best I can come up with is "features" and "components", neither of which I like. Any suggestions? Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult one, one option would be to remove the "Attractions" heading all together and move the sub headings up a level, but I'm not too keen on that either as it would lead to some very short sections. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Athletic Grounds

" During the Second World War the United States Army took over the Tower Athletic Ground as a storage facility for military vehicles". Another naming problem, as the section is titled Tower Athletic Grounds.
Fixed. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Around the football ground was an athletics track and surrounding this was a banked cycle track ...". I'm finding this description a little confusing. Presumably both the athletics track and the football pitch were inside the stadium opened in 1896? Was the space inside the running track always intended to be used by the football team? Were athletics field events such as javelin, long jump and so on also held on the pitch?
On 8 July 1935, the "british police championships" were held at Tower Athletic Grounds, which included field events (I've got the results in the Times), so it's clear the field inside was used for both the football pitch and athletics field. I've clarified on the article. Worm^TT(talk) 10:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In another incident on 18 May 1959 five people were injured during a motorcycling stunt in which a 10-foot (3.0 m) wide section of stands on which people were watching collapsed". That's implying that the collapse of the stand was part of the stunt, which I doubt it was.
Reworded. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"On 15 May 1919 a fire destroyed the athletic grounds, motorcycling track and grandstand." I don't understand this, as the preceding material had led me to believe that the whole shooting match was called the Tower Athletic Ground(s). So what survived for the US Army to take over? Anything?
It's confusingly written, but only the grand stand appears to have been destroyed. The remained of the Tower Athletic Grounds survived at least into the 1960s according to a few google images. Worm^TT(talk) 11:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Menagerie

Where was the menagerie? In the grounds or in the Tower Building?
The grand stand fire article mentions that the animals were greatly frightened by the fire, which would be less likely if they were kept indoors. I haven't found anything which confirms where they were situated, though I have found references to a "monkey house" and a "bear pit", both of which I would expect to be outside. Worm^TT(talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gardens and grounds

"... throughout the gardens the roads and paths were illuminated with fairy lights at night." Already said this in the Top of the Tower section.
Amended, as per source. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ballroom

"The 1918 New Brighton Tower season opened on the Easter weekend". When did it end? Was that just the concert season?
Removed as closer to trivia Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A fire broke out on the 3rd storey of the Tower Building on 20 January 1955, severely damaging a store room and a café." Is this in some way significant?
Removed as closer to trivia Worm^TT(talk) 12:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1962, Wallasey police station received a call regarding a half-naked man wandering around the New Brighton Tower Ballroom at night." Is this trivia paragraph really worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article?
Removed. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other attractions

"The Tower Building also contained a billiard saloon with five tables and a shooting gallery." What you're saying here is that the billiard saloon contained a shooting gallery, which I doubt.
Reworded. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" In May 1900, a 20-year-old man was shot in the arm whilst walking past the rifle range in the tower's grounds, when the attendant accidentally discharged the weapon." Again, doesn't seem like much of an attraction. Is this incident really notable?
Removed. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions

"In 1900, New Brighton Tower athletic grounds boasted the UK's first visit from "The Ashanti Village". Was the group actually called The Ashanti Village? If it was, why the scare quotes, there aren't any around The Beatles. Or was it the name given to the exhibition? Still ought not to be in quotation marks either way.
Unquoted. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Although they had arrived, delays unfortunately meant that they were not set up in time for Whitsun." Why was that unfortunate? What's the significance of Whitsun?
clarified the significance of Whitsun. Worm^TT(talk) 12:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Almost all the citations to newspapers are malformed. Compare refs #2 (which I've fixed) and #28 for instance. The Times isn't the author, it's the periodical in which the article was published, therefore using the "|last" parameter is incorrect; you should be using either "|newspaper" or "|work".
Fixed. Bazonka (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(quick drive-by stalking GA review comment) Is this review still in progress? I can see a number of minor but outstanding issues - for instance, ref 46 (Norman's book on John Lennon) needs a page number. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put this review on hold six days ago, so there's still time for someone to step up to the plate and fix the article. Eric Corbett 18:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I've done that. Eric, hopefully I'm not too late, keep getting bogged down with other junk. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not too late at all. Rather, just in time. Eric Corbett 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see all the work that's been done on this article today, but I have another question I'm afraid. In the Location section we're told that the site was owned by the New Brighton Tower and Recreation Company, but in the Construction section we're told that contracts were signed by the New Brighton Tower Estates Syndicate. What was the relationship between the two? Eric Corbett 21:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source says that the tower was built by the New Brighton Tower and Recreation Company on land that had been bought by Liverpool MP Robert Houston (clearly that is who is meant, though the source gets his middle initial wrong), and describes the company as "his company". Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the site wasn't actually owned by the New Brighton Tower and Recreation Company? Eric Corbett 22:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to the history of Wallasey site and the Times newspaper company announcements, it was owned by the company. Oddly, Robert Houston is not mentioned as one of the directors of the company, nor at all in the many announcements, so I'm not sure how he fits into the picture, perhaps he owned the largest portion of the company? It was created with 300k £1 shares, so he could have bought in that way. Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The story of the tower's construction doesn't make sense to me. It seems clear that Robert Houston bought the land and set up the New Brighton Tower and Recreation Company to develop it. But that company wasn't set up until 1896, so why was the New Brighton Tower Estates Syndicate signing contracts with developers in 1895? Did Houston transfer ownership of the land to the New Brighton Tower and Recreation Company? Was he himself involved in the company? I'm going to leave this review open for another couple of days, but unless these issues are resolved I'm afraid I won't be able to list it as a GA. Eric Corbett 12:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources don't say - perhaps because they didn't know - it would surely be OR to try to find out. Shouldn't WP just summarise the sources, and, if the sources are unclear, say so? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seem clear enough to me. Eric Corbett 14:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

can't look before Monday, I'm afraid Worm^TT(talk) 17:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric, it looks like this was a typing error, the announcement of the formation of the company, the names of directors, expected profit, contracts awarded and purchase of land all happened on 26 July 1896 in the Times. I've no reason to believe that the groundbreaking hadn't happened on 22 June, per History of Wallasey, but will remove that if you feel it's contradictory, as it is the lesser of the two sources in my view. I've corrected the typo, and reorganised for clarify. Let me know if you're happy. Worm^TT(talk) 08:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that Houston isn't mentioned - have you used this source? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. I'm going to assume that it's because the Times article focusses on the business side of things (it was effectively an advert to potential shareholders) so includes the names of solicitors, directors, architects etc, but doesn't say mention Houston. Looking carefully (thinking about "head of company"), it also doesn't mention the CEO or equivalent, so perhaps he was? I wouldn't object to his being mentioned, if you can fit it in. Worm^TT(talk) 09:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit the article myself, at least while it's going through this process. I'm just trying to nudge, gently. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly! Your skills and knowledge would be greatly appreciated and you certainly won't be stepping on any toes. I've found a couple more articles which do mention Houston as leading the New Brighton Tower project and that he acquired the right to buy the land (not that he himself bought it). It certainly sounds like it was his company, even if he wasn't mentioned as a director. What's more, there appears to have been a court case over the supply of alcoholic drinks to the tower, he was sued personally, he was certainly involved!. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see Houston's involvement explained, but I don't think that's an impediment to listing this article as a GA, so I'm going to close this review now. Eric Corbett 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.