# Talk:Coxton Tower

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coxton Tower/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 13:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll have a look at this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Optional: It is good practice to remove infobox criteria which are never going to be used.
 Done - I've left in a few that I guess might be possible to populate with further research, but removed most of them.
I have cheekily added a location map. What do you think?
I like it!
Image Coxton 1.jpg needs a US PD tag.
 I'm not familiar with these. I came across the image at this article on the German Wikipedia while I was searching for sources, and thought I'd be OK to use it since its listing on Commons said it was out of copyright - is a US PD tag something that I can add, or do I need to lose the image :(?
I have changed the PD tag. You might want to look at the diff on the image's home page for future reference. { {PD-old-100-1923} } is a useful tag.
"Coxton Tower is a fairly small" I think that 'relatively' may be a better word than "fairly".
 Done
The main article is supposed to include everything in the lead, so adding 'in Moray, Scotland" after "1 kilometre south of Lhanbryde".
 Done
Do you know how (and when) to use the {{convert}} template?
 Done
"it is in an unusually good state of repair, since its 2001 restoration by Law & Dunbar-Nasmith" This is a little unclear to me. Is it in such good repair because of its restoration?
I believe that is what is implied by the source. I imagine it must have been in a pretty decent state of repair prior to the restoration, but they've done a good job on it and now it's much better than you would expect an uninhabited building of that age to be.
I assumed similarly. So perhaps a a minor rephrase to make this clearer?
"since its 2001 restoration by Law & Dunbar-Nasmith" This is out of chronological order and doesn't really make sense here. Maybe, 'in 2001 it was restored to an unusually good state of repair"?
 Worded in line with your suggestions
"survive today" Delete "today", it is implicit.
 Done
Link armorial.
 Done
Link feudal.
 Done
Lead - "It has not been occupied since at least 1900"; article - "The tower has been uninhabited since around 1900." Which?
 I intended to check the exact wording on the CANMORE website, but annoyingly it's offline. (They seem to have been having some issues lately, it's not the first time it's done this, and from past experience they won't get it up again until after the weekend.) I had another look in Pevsner though, and it says 'the interior has been uninhabited since c.1867', so I've gone for that date in both instances and replaced the ref.
"Alexander Innes was granted a license" Do we know by who? Either by name or position?
The source doesn't say specifically, it just says he was given a licence; however, I believe that it would have been a royal license, see Licence to crenellate - you needed a license from the crown in order to build a fortified house, or to fortify an existing house. Do you think I should take that as implicit and give a link?
I assumed that was going to be the answer. I think that we can safely go with 'royal licence' and link as you suggest.
"Each storey of the tower has a single room" Optional: "has" → 'is'.
 Done
Link "vaulted to Vault (architecture).
 Done
"which each have windows with additional gun-loops" Is that correct? Or should "with" be 'and'?
 I've read the source more carefully - on the second floor, there is a gun-loop built into the window; on the third floor, they're separate. I've expanded and explained.
"LTM Group were engaged by the architects Law & Dunbar-Nasmith to undertake restoration work on the fabric of the building." Is it known on whose behalf they were acting?
 This was done on behalf of the current owners.
Is it known who the current owners are?
 OK, so with a bit of digging, I'm pretty sure that the current owners are a pair of brothers, Roger and Malcolm Christie. I don't think I can add that in though - it's cobbled together from blogs, a Twitter feed, a planning application document on the local council website, that sort of thing. Do you think it's OK to refer to them just as 'the current owners'?
Yes. It would be best if you felt that you could confirm that it is in private hands.
"Coxton Tower was removed from the scheduled monuments register in 2018, as part of Historic Environment Scotland's Dual Designation 2A project" Would it be possible to give a little more detail. I suspect that a reader my find it not immediately clear.
Link limewashing.
 Done
Link pitch.
 Done
A quick first skim. Looking good so far. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild - I'll start implementing these suggestions, and will check the sources for any more detail I can get to clear up the ambiguities. I confess I'm not that familiar with the convert template, but I'll read up on it - I'm guessing I should be using it for the location of the site and the dimensions of the structure. GirthSummit (blether) 23:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to read up on convert, but I'll talk you through it tomorrow if you want. A lot of the queries are general - if the information is not readily to hand, feel free to say so; you only need to " address[…] the main aspects of the topic". Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - I've gone through the easy stuff, and I think I figured out the convert template. I'm going to do a bit of searching to see whether I can determine current ownership, who paid for the repair work, and exactly what the Dual Designation project was - I think it was just going rationalising all their buildings that were designated as both scheduled monuments and listed buildings, but I'll see what I can dig up. I have found out a bit more about the building's ownership up into the nineteenth century, which I'll also add in. GirthSummit (blether) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Convert is fine. I removed the spurious accuracy from the 1 km. I hope that is OK. A couple of comments above. Everything you have done is looking good, as is the article. Tomorrow I'll go through again to see all of the changes holistically and check the sourcing. Hopefully we are then done and you have a shiny new GA, I am not worried about the "gaps" in the history; you have covered all of the structural changes in description and IMO GAN doesn't need obscure stuff like a list of owners. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"it was restored to an unusually good state of repair in 2001 by Law & Dunbar-Nasmith" Delete "by Law & Dunbar-Nasmith"; you repeat it further down, with additional detail and, IMO, in a more appropriate place.
I rephrased it, removing the detail about the restoration and just noting that it's in good condition.
The infobox has "Completion" as 1645, but the article has this as the date of some repairs after an attack, with the building finishing around 1590. Am I missing something?
Well spotted! 1590 is the correct date.
Just the last sentence not really clear as to what it is trying to communicate. Although I could live with it if you can't think of a way to rephrase it. (Looking at the source, maybe something like 'Coxton Tower was removed from the scheduled monuments register in 2018, as this largely duplicated by its listed building status. Also, according to the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, a monument cannot be a structure which is occupied as a dwelling, and since the 2001 renovation this has been a possibility.'?)
I've gone with your suggestion, thanks.
The sources check out.
I found a PhD thesis from Dundee Uni that explicitly named the owner and gave a couple if interesting historical details, which I've added. I'm not sure whether I've referenced it correctly though - is the 'cite web' template OK for that?
That's a very interesting looking thesis. There is a particular way of laying them out as citations, so I have tweaked things slightly. ("cite thesis".) It looks very respectable now. An easy pass at GAN. You may want to think about trying it at A class. Really good work.
Sorry not brave enough to edit the main Page - but here's a few notes
Unlikely there would have been a ladder to the entrance, more likely a wooden stairway that could be chopped down if under attack, the a ladder being used to escape one's self. The Billings drawing of 1845 is probably an artist impression, William Daniell etching (drawn in 1815), shows a stone stairway, of a different design that what's there now.
The RI on the Armorial Panel, more likely refers to Robert Innes, 2nd of Invermarkie, who was given the land by James Earl of Moray in his will when he died in 1544.  The panel is dated 1644, possibly put there so show he was a good family man. All of the sacking are tied to the same story.
Some cut sandstone probably from Hopeman quarry was also used in construction.  Thomas Christie used Caithness stone for the floors when he restored it around the first World War (work stopped during the war). The current owners great uncle, Thomas Christie bought the Tower in 1912 (according to The Register of Sasines), but had rented it for a few years previously.
"Completely" destroyed by fire in 1584, is a bit misleading. Evidenced the differing designs of the NW and SE turrets, and that the SW turret is less well built than the NE, It seems as the front turret had to be rebuilt, but not the rear one. That was very much a revenge attack, rather than later attack which were purely to gain ownership. Damages were paid of 7,000 merks after the 1584 fire, but only 1,000 merks after the 1635 break-in.
Benjamin Penichuik (Sp?) was the last person to live in the Tower.  He had certainly moved to Lhanbryde by 1854 when he cured the village of Jaundice.  I'm not sure if it was in the Tower the Canadian was billeted in, but rather the house.  They certainly built the wooden partition on the ground floor (to store coal) and the two stone posts in front of the tower (to prevent his lorry from bashing into the Tower).
The roof was done in 2001. The harling, windows and new downpipe to the east, in 2008 as part of phase 2.  Phase three (internal work) is still to be done. Paid for mostly by the Christie family and partly from a grant from Historic Scotland. It was hoped this would solve dampness, but dampness is still prevalent, especially on the first floor.
Alexander Innes obtained a the land from Robert Innes 3rd of Invermarkie (9/3/1571) (see Thomas Innes article in Scottish Field, March 1934).  Your link deals with English Law.  I always assumed the 1572 date was when it was registered with "Retours of Services of Heirs (Scotland)", but I don't know.  Unlike England, Scotland was encouraging castle building (a 1535 Act that said land worth over £100 needed a castle or tower house to defend it).  Although you could be a license, as The Earl of Moray had no right to give away crown land in the first place - solved in 1618 with the creation of the barony, which until recently was connected to the land, so I assume Roger Christie is the current Baron.

Hi Autodidact1, now I'm in front of my computer I wanted to respond more fully. I am usually fine about being corrected in errors in my prose (and indeed have thanked Giraffedata twice when they've caught me using 'comprised of'). I confess though to being irked by the tone of your edit summaries: so far, you have connected the words 'pretentious', 'lazy' and 'stupid' to the use of the word 'via'. Given that the use of the word was mine, it's hard to take that as constructive criticism. You've also presented no evidence to support your assertion that 'by' is the correct preposition to use here.
I'm afraid that using the word 'by' as the preposition there sounds very awkward to me. A person doesn't reach the entrance by a stairway, they reach the entrance by using a stairway, or by ascending a stairway. My Collins dictionary gives me three definitions of 'via' - 'by way of', 'through' and 'by means of', the last of which is exactly the meaning I was trying to convey here. I then checked Fowler's Modern English Usage (2008 edition), which tells me that the word derives form Latin but is now "thoroughly naturalised" in English usage. The MOS has nothing to say on the matter, as far as I can tell. So I can't really see what your problem with it is.
I realise that I'm probably being a bit defensive here, and that I do not own the article, but having done the research, written the article from scratch and taken it through a Good Article review, I've probably got a bit more invested in this than you have, and the words you chose to use in your edit summaries were offensive and unnecessary. Nobody else at any stage of review (for GA or DYK) has made any comment about that word. If you have any evidence to back up your assertion that 'by' is a better word to use here I'll be prepared to consider it and discuss, but please no more of the invective. Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 16:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)