Talk:Palace of Westminster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palace of Westminster article.
Article policies
Palace of Westminster was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 31, 2008
Former featured article Palace of Westminster is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 26, 2005.
Peer review This Arts article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article was the showcase article of the London Portal in November 2005.
Palace of Westminster is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Abrupt ending of history section

The section on history seems to end at the year 1860! Surely there is a lot of more recent history which should be covered by the article, particularly the destruction by bombing in Word War Two? --ManInStone 11:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent protest

Does the article mention the recent Heathrow expansion protest when Plane Supid protesters scaled the Houses of Parliament? I'm suprised they weren't shot but then again it would only fund their cause. Although I agree another terminal is not neccesary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.24.139 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Security

The article mentions concrete blocks being used to protect from road carried bombs. However during my visit in August I could not see any obvuious concrete blocks but I did see black metal ovoid shapes (which may have contained concrete). Does the article need to be updated to reflect this?

On the river side I noticed yellow buoys in the water but no obvious indications of security measures. What protection is provided here?

Have there been cases of messages and pictures being projected onto the outside walls of the palace? I've seen photos of this but was not sure if these were faked. Would these consititute a security breach worth mentioning in the article? --ManInStone 11:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Westminster Hall on first floor?

This very good article contains the following:

The building includes four floors; the ground floor includes offices, dining rooms, and bars. The first floor houses the principal rooms of the Palace, including the Chambers, Westminster Hall, the lobbies, and the libraries.

Clearly from the first sentence's reference to a ground floor, we are using 'first floor' here in the UK rather than US sense. In which case the statement that Westminster Hall is on the first floor confuses me. My recollection is than on entry via the public entrance, Westminster Hall is more or less immediately to the left and below, with a significant flight of stairs down to the halls floor level. I cannot square that with it being on the first floor. Am I mis-remembering, or is the article wrong?. -- Chris j wood 20:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's older than the rest and has a different floor level. I should think it is between the two, but I haven't measured. The main access is from the first floor, so it functions more as part of that than as part of the other. CalJW 05:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Westminster Hall is usually accessed by walking down one flight from the first floor lobby leading to St Stephens. It can also be accessed (without stairs) from ground level at New Palace Yard or Star Chamber Court. MikeHobday 16:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] influence of layout of Commons Chamber on British democracy

I have heard it said[1] that the layout of the Commons Chamber which is a) small and b) "confrontational" with two opposing rows has directly influenced the working of British democracy and the two party system. Shouldn't this be covered here? I don't see it under House of Commons either. Mozzerati 21:20, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

[edit] gothic-neogothic?

Shouldn't it say that the building is of neogothic architecture instead of gothic, in the first paragraph?

I have substituted gothic revival for gothic architecture in conformity with an existing wikipedia article. In my own language it would be called "neogothic". However, neogothic is defined in the Wikipedia as an American branch of the gothic revival. I do not think this is quite O.K., but in a an encyclopedia it is important to use the terminology consistently. --Georgius 18:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] section headings

concise, well done. User:Xmnemonic

[edit] 1 km != 1 1/2 miles

Since 1 August 2005, it has been illegal to hold a protest within 1 and a half miles (1 km) of the Palace without the prior permission of the Metropolitan Police.

1 km is not equal to 1 1/2 miles. I don't know what is stated by the law, but this can never be rightm - User:AngelovdS
The zone is 0.5 miles (roughly 1km) [2] MRSC 18:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
One kilometre is 0.621371 miles - Adrian Pingstone 21:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
That is true. But how was the new law worded? In miles or km? MRSC 06:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
In miles - Kittybrewster 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commons chamber - number of seats

Parliament (parliament.uk website) lists the number of seats available in the chamber as 427, not 437 as listed here. [3]

Furthermore, the BBC also use this number. [4]

So does Channel 4. [5]

I haven't found a 'respectable' source listing there as being 437 seats - I presume this came from a misprint or typing error somewhere, so am changing it to match the sources referenced.

Mauls 22:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Longstanding error

This sentence in the section on the layout of the Lords contains an error: "The benches on the right of the Woolsack form the Spiritual Side, and those to the right [again] form the Temporal Side." Which is on the left? Also, is that the right looking from the throne, or towards it? Honbicot 20:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. --StanZegel (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of terrorism plan claim

I've removed this, as added by User:Preschooler.at.heart, as it's a rather wild claim, one that I've not heard before, and which is not sourced at all:

In 2001, a terrorist attack was planned involving running a commercial airliner into the palace in coordination with the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC, and also another failed plan involving Tower Bridge. the plan was aborted at the last minute when the would-be hijackers saw the damage in the United States, panicked, and fled.

Thoughts? James F. (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Kittybrewster 16:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sauce

Should this article link to HP Sauce? And if so, where? (There's no particularly light-hearted trivia section). fabiform 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership

Does the Crown or the Government own the palace, or both? Rednaxela 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a Royal Palace so owned by the crown, well that is what i was told when i went there.--Jajon 22:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The government technically serves the Crown, so in theory all government property are possessions of the Crown. This does not mean that any of it is under the personal control of the Sovereign or that she may dispose of it as she wills. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Fawkes, et al

This article currently states unequivocally that Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators were dupes: "The plot was a successful conspiracy aiming to trick Roman Catholic insurgents into planning...an explosion in the Palace....The plot was however always a trap...." I think that this is rather more certain than the facts warrant. Even the Wikticle on the Gunpowder Plot is dubious about it, indicating that not a lot of support is given the trap theory, other than that Cecil may have known about the Plot for a few days before it was officially unmasked. I would change this, but i don't want to step in if there has been discussion about it previously, and this is a current consensus. Give it a couple of days and rework it? Lindsay H. 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, on the basis that no one else did or objected. Cheers, Lindsay 14:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edward the Confessor

Edward the Confessor is here described as the penultimate Saxon king of England. I suggest that the word "penultimate" be removed, since this is not accurate if one includes among the Saxon kings Edgar Aetheling, who was proclaimed king of England by the Witan after the Battle of Hastings, though never crowned. Shulgi 13:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


But Edgar Aetheling is not generally accepted as one of the kings of England, so this is irrelevant.

[edit] Featured Picture at Commons not here

This is a featured pictured at Commons but is not on the page here, I was wondering what everyone thought about putting it in somewhere... Not sure where exactly. Maybe even in the infobox? Witty lama 07:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its an example of Wikipedia not working anymore. This image was added to the article in Feb 2007, replacing my previous Featured Picture that had been there for a couple of years. Then a week later someone removed the new FP (for no very good reason that I can see) leaving a different night shot taken from the London Eye at the head of the article. Curiously, on the same day, this second image was deleted on the Commons, because it had been sourced from SXC with insufficient confirmation of free license. That left the article with no lead image, so a third editor moved another one up from the body. I noticed that the FP had disappeared from the article yesterday and let Diliff know - I only noticed because I thought I had found the same picture being used without credit (a copyright violation) on a different web site and I came here to verify whether they were the same.
So not only do we have a series of questionable decisions that no one discussed or challenged, but no one ever checks to see whether an article was in better shape in the past. It could be worse, many articles are loosing whole paragraphs and sections. Hence, the self healing of articles by good editors no longer works sufficiently well and Wikipedia is deteriorating. -- Solipsist 09:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
...and with the article de-formatted to the fotostrip down one side, fewer illustrations can be accomodated, juxtaposed with relevant sections of text. --Wetman 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Chancellor

The article still refers to the Lord Chancellor as living in the Palace and leading the procession to the Lords each day. The Lord Speaker now does this, although she does not live in the Palace. Not quite sure how to phrase this - grateful if someone else could correct it. 81.1.103.204 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC) sjb92 14:14, 29 April 2007 (BST)

[edit] Palace of Westminister security

Most of the security featured talks of the inside of the Palace and the outside with the concrete barriers and things. What about the water side? Is there no security there,as this would be a potential spot for any terrorism. Is there no security to the water edge? Thanks St91 11:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There's an exclusion zone, (info added). There may be all manner of clever detection devices and stopping boat devices but it's probably all top-secret! Paulbrock (talk) 11:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Are they in or are they out?

"The Commons do not enter the Chamber; instead, they watch the proceedings from the Bar of the House, just inside the Chamber." - I am virtually certain that sentence might be phrased better. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 21:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed... Paulbrock (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent Number of Miles of Corridors

In the introduction it states - "well over three kilometres (two miles) of corridors". This is contradicted in the INTERIOR section further down ... "and 3 miles (5 km) of passageways" - which one is correct??? Lanzarotemaps (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed and referenced now. Paulbrock (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules and Traditions

As far as I can tell, this section has been plagiarized from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/81960.stm, which is citation number 16. The citation was modified last on 30 August 2005, while the section was added 4 March 2008, and the texts are nearly identical. I apologize to the editor if someone else is copying from this article though. Belgarion89 (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Some parts have been sufficiently 'adapted' the rest needs a bit more tweaking! Paulbrock (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article/Featured Article

Since its demotion in January, this article is no longer a Featured Article. I'm on a push to get it back up there, via Good Article promotion. As far as I can see, it meets points 4-6 of the Good article criteria, leaving:

1. Well-written - should have no spelling, grammar problems, comply with MOS. I think this is pretty much there, but not 100% sure
2. Accurate and verifiable - a few inline refs still missing, I think the sources at the bottom cover most things, but need a bit more digging through.
3. Broad in coverage - seems to be reasonable, following comments on this page, will try and get more info on the 1941 bombing, and terrorist prevention on the river side, but then that should be it?
Paulbrock (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking care of 1, and you have been doing an excellent job with 2. 3 seems to be just right, especially with the much-needed expansion of the bombing part.
After a few more tweaks, the article will be ripe for GA. As a matter of fact, it might even be suitable for a Featured Article re-nomination; the issues which brought about its being de-featured were Manual of Style breaches and a lack of citations. Apart from these, it is an excellent article (with a reservation about the way it ends; I am not fully satisfied there).
The good thing is that GA is an unofficial process, which means that minimal bureaucracy will be involved, making it a good step to take even if we are sure that it will pass FAC. Waltham, The Duke of 17:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, so as it stands I believe the article should pass GA. I think 2 and 3 are very well addressed now, and after another proof-read from the Duke, we can tick off 1 as well, and put it up as a GAC. Assuming it passes, on to FA! (which I've never done before so look forward to getting stuck in) Paulbrock (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Text notes

I am not quite content with the fifth paragraph of the History section; it first says that the Royal Commission decided that the new building would be either Gothic or Elizabethan, then it says that a heated public debate about the style ensued, and then it finishes with "it was decided that neo-Classical design ... was to be avoided". This order does not make much sense; was the decision made separately from the Royal Commission? It sounds implausible, yet no clue is given that this is the course of action which led to the Commission making this decision. I must know the facts before changing the text. Waltham, The Duke of 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; the debate was about the proposed styles. I suppose it refers to Gothic and Elizabethan... But the paragraph still lacks coherence; after the "debate" mention, it goes back to why neo-Classical design was dismissed, and it ends with "Gothic embodies conservative values" without really saying why the Elizabethan style was not chosen. Was there better contrast between Gothic and neo-Classical? It is (barely) implied, and could be supposed by the reader, but is definitely not said. Waltham, The Duke of 04:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think from various skimming of the sources, that the vast majority of the applications were Gothic rather than Elizabethan; will keep an eye out for a source! Paulbrock (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to infer the heated debate occured before the Commission announced the acceptable styles...will check through the article history as it's probably been changed over time...should be something like:
"A Royal Commission was appointed to study the rebuilding of the Palace,and a heated public debate over proposed styles ensued. The Commission decided that it should be rebuilt on the same site, and that its style should be either Gothic or Elizabethan. It was decided that neo-Classical design, similar to that of the White House....was to be avoided due to its connotations of revolution and republicanism,whereas Gothic design embodied conservative values."

Paulbrock (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds quite satisfactory... Yes, it is very good. If a source can support it, it will be water-tight, but even so it sounds very plausible. Apart from the implied reasoning of the preference for Gothic style due to its antithesis with neo-Classicism, one could also assume that the style of nearby Westminster Abbey might have influenced the final result... But this is original research; one can by no means be sure of that. (Unless, of course, one could locate a relevant source; it all comes down to that, after all...)
See previous version [6] - that has a version where the Commission asked for Gothic or Classical, and then the heated public debate ensued. Just need to check what the Comission asked for, to put everything in the right chronological order! Paulbrock (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I like very much what you've done with the paragraph, Paulbrock. It is now coherent and internally consistent, and provides a clear line of events, which continues into the next paragraph. I'd prefer it if it didn't have to change again; after all, what sense does it make, debating in favour of a style excluded from the competition?
The source is excellent, by the way; I read it top-to-bottom. Waltham, The Duke of 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Now, about my second concern: Security. I like the change in layout (the insertion of an Incidents sub-section), but it has introduced a small problem, namely the Strangers' Gallery. The Gallery is not mentioned at all in the section about the Commons' Chamber, and the restructuring of the Security section has made its first mention (in the third paragraph) rather out-of-place. I have made a small modification, but I do not know to what extent it will suffice.
I've tidied a little more, and linked to the separate Strangers Gallery article, I think that clarifies things OK.Paulbrock (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea that the article existed; it was absolutely stupid of me not to look it up. I think that part is in order now. Waltham, The Duke of 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, and something else that I have just remembered: See also sections are only supposed to list items not included in the body of their respective articles. The Jewel Tower is linked in the article (mostly in the beginning), but if I remove it, all that will be left will be Portcullis House and Norman Shaw Building (which share the same line). I am not sure how good a single-lined See also section would look. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 10:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd *like* to be able to incorporate both into the main article, particularly Jewel Tower as a summary-style section..Portcullis and Norman Shaw could be mentioned under recent history, which would stop it ending abruptly in the war years. Paulbrock (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm with you there; an ideal article has no See also section. Portcullis House, especially, is quite new and stands just across the street, so it is perfectly legitimate for inclusion in the history section. Besides, its design is influenced by its two neighbouring buildings (N. Shaw Building and the Palace), and its name references the symbol of parliament—I think the inclusion of a mention to the portcullis would be a nice touch for the history.
Other notes... Very good work with sourcing and the removal of the remaining unsourced (and relatively unimportant) statements. However, I don't like the change to the part about Spencer Perceval's death. His assassination is already mentioned in the Incidents sub-section of the Security section; repeating the same thing in Other traditions is redundant and, as it now stands, irrelevant to the traditions. Unless the previous statement (about his officially dying at 10 Downing Street) can be verified, I suggest the passage's complete removal. Personally, I'd really like to see that back, but I cannot ask for much since I don't look for sources myself. Waltham, The Duke of 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've looked high and low (online!) but every other page mentioning Perceval's assassination doesn't mention the 'officially died in Downing St' stuff, so (for now at least) I have to rule it as unverifiable. Thanks for all the article feedback,very useful.Paulbrock (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You imbecile! You scared the hell out of me; I spend half an hour searching the history to find out how half the Commons section disappeared! Bloody reference slashes... The tiniest error can create mayhem under the right circumstances. Anyway it's fixed now. Bring me a glass of whiskey to steady my nerves, and we'll be fine. :-D
About the assassination, I have tracked down the editor who added the entire "Customs and traditions" section, and asked him about the particular statement. I do not know why I insist so much on this, but just wanted to use all the means in my disposal. In any case, he has found no source, but says that if he finds one he will reinstate the statement.
I have done a general read and copy-edit. These are my questions, requests, and notes:
  • Note: I have finally changed USA to United States; apart from my dislike for the acronym in this place, it is unclear to me to what extent USA was in use in the mid-nineteenth century.
  • Note: two of the Factsheets, including the one cited as a source after the passage about Portcullis House, state that it was completed in the autumn of 2000, and not in 2001, so I have changed that. I wonder if you've seen something else in another source. (For the record, the Wikipedia article says it opened in 2001.)
  • Request: Can you find since when the Victoria Tower has housed the Parliamentary Archives? Several days ago, I changed the original "The tower is home to the Parliamentary Archives" to "Today it is the home..."; it was meant to be a text improvement, and the statement is now accurate, but I cannot really know for how long it has been. Perhaps it was from the start.
  • Question: Do you think we should include a "click for the key" note in the caption of the floor plan? There used to be such a note in older versions of the article, and I find it quite useful.
  • Question: Is there a specific reason why the two sides in the Lords are defined as "on the right" and "on the left" of the Lord Chancellor? If not, that should be changed to Lord Speaker. I also wonder about the "Lord Chancellors apartments"; does he still live in the Palace?
  • Request: The first paragraph of the "Westminster Hall" sub-section is completely unreferenced; could at least the claim about the Hall's being the largest in England be sourced?
  • Note: Some of your text changes in the same section have confused me a little, I must admit. Are we to keep "various functions" in past tense but "ceremonial functions" in present tense? I've done a few tweaks but I might have missed something here.
  • Question: Should units and their conversions be consistent in their order? The metric system is normally first in the article, but the length of the corridors has miles first. The source gives "about 3 miles (4.8 km)" as the length of corridors; why does the intro say "well over"?
I leave these few things for your consideration. Waltham, The Duke of 23:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry if I have offended you with the beginning of my message; it was intended to be humorous, and it reflected how I felt at the time. Please don't leave... Waltham, The Duke of 00:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Still here, don't worry! Small wikibreak due to real life stuff. OK, it's all looking good,replies to specific points:
  • Portcullis House - yes must have 'borrowed' date from Portcullis House incorrectly.
  • Will have a good luck for Archives stuff - update - according to Parliamentary Archives, "Charles Barry's winning design had as its culminating feature a tower over the Royal entrance in which every storey included 'Record Rooms'", and from the rest of the article, it sounds like it stored the records from its opening, although for a long period under the name "House of Lords Record Office".
  • 'click for key'. I'd say not, it's a little unconventional, and people can't actually see the annotations unless they click on it anyway, which would leave us with 'click for a larger version', which is extraneous anyway.
  • Lord Chancellor - update - wrt left or right, I've amended Chancellor->Speaker. The text was put in pre-2006, and in the absence of any other evidence, should be updated to reflect that the Speaker is now on the woolsack. This article [7] suggests the Speaker would have use of part of the Chancellor's apartments, but there is no indication they would be renamed; so I think that text is fine as is. I'm just looking for info/a reference for the daily "formal processions".
  • Westminster Hall - agreed. no point in saying "Accounts record..." if we don't say what they are!
  • tenses - I'd say ceremonial functions should be past tense as well - no coronation banquests for 150 years. Likewise for lying in state - I'm not sure we can say the Hall *is used* for lyings-in-state,because I don't think there's a reason why it should be Westminster Hall that's used, just that it *has been used* for them.
  • Measurements - from WP:UNITS - I'll take a look at applying this to the article - I know there was some inconsistency with corridor lengths so will check it again.
  • For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article).
  • Conversions to and from metric and imperial/US units should generally be provided.
  • In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses; for example, a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long or a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long. The exception is that where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence.
  • Category:Conversion templates can be used to convert and format many common units, including {{convert}}, which includes non-breaking spaces.
  • Ranges are preferably formatted with one rather than two unit signifiers (5.9–6.3 kg, not 5.9 kg – 6.3 kg).
Good to see you back. I hope your real-life pursuits are going well, whatever they are. So...
  • About the caption, I agree that the readers will not see the image's annotations from the article. As a matter of fact, they are not expected to know about the existence of the annotations at all. And this is exactly why I am proposing the inclusion of a click for the key (or similar) caption: readers will be informed of the ability to learn a little bit more about the layout. I shall not insist upon it, but I find it a good idea.
  • About tenses, has been is, I think, the best option, because the Hall is used for lyings-in-state and other ceremonial occasions, and has been for a long time (perhaps always; it has been a castle or mansion's equivalent of a Great Hall, and it sounds plausible that it should be used for formal occasions, especially those which large crowds were expected to attend). After a single tweak in the "addresses" section, I now believe that the section is in perfect grammatical order.
  • The last paragraph of the "Westminster Hall" section might also use a reference; I think a phrase like "This pattern is meant to reflect..." warrants it. I might have read this myself in one of the factsheets, but I'd have to look it up—you are so much better with sources (by the way, you seem to have left a source, No. 11, unnamed).
Good work with both the sources and the conversions. We are very near the end, I am happy to say; I cannot see much room for improvement. This used to be a Featured Article, after all, even if its standards had been long surpassed... Waltham, The Duke of 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Two more notes:
  • Several references are raw URLs; from what I know, these are frowned upon, to put it mildly, and should be made more presentable.
  • I don't like the inconsistency in the spelling of the debating chambers: Lords Chamber and Lords' Chamber are both encountered quite often, as are Commons Chamber and Commons' Chamber. I think we should make a decision on the spelling.
PS: I spotted the faulty reference thanks to an error message in the reference list—it was nothing in particular. Waltham, The Duke of 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Both the Times and Telegraph use "Commons chamber" [8] [9] (note lower-case on chamber). Likewise "Lords chamber" by the Guardian [10],Telegraph[11] and Times[12]. Very few instances of apostrophe use. The official names preferred by Parliament seem to be capitalised "Chamber". I think we can stick with the official "Chamber", just no apostrophes! Paulbrock (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with that. As the Lord Speaker would say, "The Contents have it". I shall review the article immediately. Waltham, The Duke of 20:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More sources

I contacted a former editor of this article and they were kind enough to email me further information. I'll work to incorporate into the article; in the meantime if anyone else is interested, the information can be viewed at User:Paulbrock/WestminsterHall. Paulbrock (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In my not-so-humble opinion, the section for Westminster Hall is already long enough; actually, it might require some trimming. I feel that the additional information is the perfect excuse to split the Hall into its own little article, and there to expand it at will. What say you? Waltham, The Duke of 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, with all these breaks your nomination might be dismissed as drive-by. :-D
Well, I don't think there will be any problems with nominating, but what do you think about my idea? There is much information here, and smaller articles have broken off. Waltham, The Duke of 07:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions either way to be honest; I think we'd be fine keeping it here without this article being too long, but there's also enough for at least a stub. Paulbrock (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that the article itself is long, but that the relative size of the section in question is becoming too great. I see that pieces of information are still added once in a while, and if we are to use the information in your sub-page, then we shall certainly unbalance the article. Unless you prove to be faster than me, I shall explore ways of creating a good stand-alone article in the place of the current redirect and perhaps move ahead with its creation. With the material we have in our hands, I find it more likely that it should be classified as Start-class rather than a simple stub. Waltham, The Duke of 22:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GA Review

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

I'm sorry to inform the editors of this article that I am quickfailing it due to lack of in-line citations. Here are some things to fix before renomination:

  • There are entire sections and paragraphs without in-line citations. Please provide them to increase verifiability.
  • All the pictures are located on the right-hand side of the article. Can't some of them be moved to the left, so it looks more balanced?
  • There are several one or two sentence paragraphs. Merge these with the surrounding paragraphs or expand them.
  • The citations in the references need to be formatted with Template:cite web.
  • Format all numbers + words with  . Ex: 70 meters

Good luck with improving the article. Nikki311 04:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure you do not accept, urm... gifts? Perhaps we could discuss it and reach a profitable agreement... :-D
Anyway, I shall not comment on the citations, as they are far outside my field. On the other points:
  • I have staggered the images, making sure not to sandwich any text between a pair of them and not to put any left-aligned images right below headings. I have also removed the last image, which didn't really fit, either visually or contextually—it also depicted a dusk scene, as does the first image, rendering it partly redundant.
  • I realise that paragraphs which are too small are undesirable, but they seem to be unavoidable in some contexts and in most cases there is little information to help us expand them. For instance, look at the "Towers" section (one paragraph for each tower), and the "Other traditions" section, where the various items do not match well with one another. Could you please elaborate on this matter, and perhaps give us some advice?
  • The guideline on hard spaces appeared to instruct editors to insert them between every number-and-word compound; that was excessive and did not reflect the actual consensus creating the guideline, nor common sense, publishing practices, and the examples given in that same guideline. For this reason, I made a clarification on 21 May, yet to be contested, that hard spaces should be used for measurements (e.g. 4.8 kilometres), but not other compounds (e.g. 1,200 rooms or six allegorical frescoes). Any day now the style monthly updates will be published; the change will be registered there. (By the way, "nowiki" tags do not work with HTML; you should use   for showing the code. I have taken the liberty to correct this in your review.)
In any event, thank you for your trouble. We shall do whatever we can to rectify the problems, and return for a re-nomination. I suppose you shall be conducting that review as well? (I want to be sure I'll get my money's worth. ;-D) Waltham, The Duke of 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)