Talk:Gray's Inn/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

As a result of several quick read-throughs, this article appears to be GA-class material. In particular, it appears to be comprehensive in scope and well referenced; but there is a bit of over-linking, e.g. Inns of Chancery appears to be excessively linked where ever it appears, but that is a minor problem that can be very easily remedied during the review.

I will now go through the article is some detail section by section, checking against WP:WIAGA, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.

As this is a comprehensive article, it might take me a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one link, leaving three links to the Inns of Chancery. Over 40kb, that sounds about right. It's not a common term, so I tend to link such things a bit more often. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a "wiki-linked phrase" that caught my eye. It is suggested that no more than one wiki-link per section be used; it just caught my attention since it appeared to be linked in two consecutive paragraphs, in two consecutive sections (and linked singularly in several other sections). In reviewing I would probably delink the second occurence in each section (where relevant). Pyrotec (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Role -

Appears compliant, but are barrister's always "he"s? (shades of PC).

You want me to put in he/she everywhere? Barristers are mostly he's, and in the historical sense will always be he - the first female barrister wasn't admitted to one of the Inns of Court until 1921, largely because of the law degree awarding attitude of universities. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not add this explantation to Role. Pyrotec (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That most barristers are male? Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a PC comment about "allowing him to practise as a barrister in England and Wales.[1]" In respect to your question above I indicated that you could add a note based on your expanation: "Barristers are mostly he's, and in the historical sense will always be he - the first female barrister wasn't admitted to one of the Inns of Court until 1921, largely because of the law degree awarding attitude of universities." To summarise, you say they were always male before 1921 and mostly male from then onwards.That appears to be encyclopedic, why not add it to the article? Pyrotec (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This section disscusses practising as a barrister in England and Wales. There is no mention of whether he is able or not to practise in Scotland (or NI); but the WP:Lead does not have this caveate about England and Wales. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Added a caveat in the lede - barristers must be called separately in NI/Scotland to practice there, since they have seperate legal systems and separate laws. Ironholds (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• History -

• The first paragraph; is "common lawyer" a technical term?

• Yup, a lawyer of the common law, rather than of say, canon law, who would be a member of Doctors' Commons. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reference for their migration to Holborn?

• Added. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Founding and early years -

• Reference for socii.

• Added. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Elizabethan golden age -

• I've no idea what Bolts are (well I assume they are not any of these Bolt).

• A form of legal exercise - there's no more specific information about it. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Caroline period and the English Civil War -

• What are Pension meetings?

• Meetings of the Pension - see the "structure and governance" section. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

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:

   Well referenced

   B. Focused:

   Well referenced

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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on the quality of the article. If you are willing to undertake the additional work, this article could be a WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)