Talk:Court of Chancery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good overall. Just a few questions:

• The grammar of this sentence is not quite right. I am not sure if you are missing a word, or have something in the wrong tense: "Previously, under Henry VI, it had been the practice that plaintiffs in the common law courts could pursue cases not execute judgments given by the common law judges if the Lord Chancellor felt their claim was "against conscience"."
• I am unfamiliar with the word "recognizances", could that be a mispelling - or is it a legal term?
• I think there should references after these statements:
  • "Coke and the other judges overruled this while Ellesmere was ill, taking it as an opportunity to completely overthrow the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction, and Ellesmere appealed to the Monarch, who referred the matter to the Attorney General for the Prince of Wales and Francis Bacon, the Attorney General for England and Wales."
  • "This bold move is seen as helping Coke lose his position as a judge, and until the dissolution of the court it was able to overrule judgments issued in the common law courts."
  • "An effect of the English Civil War and resulting Commonwealth of England, particularly the "liberal" values and feelings it stirred up, was the continuous modernisation and improvement of the common law courts, something that reduced the interference of the Lord Chancellor in common law matters, except in areas where they had wildly divergent principles and law"
  • "A major reform to the Court happened soon after the restoration, with the introduction of a right of appeal to the House of Lords from the Chancery. Prior to this there had been no records of appeals to the Lords, and a committee had concluded that there was no precedent to give the Lords jurisdiction over equity matters, except when problems and cases were sent directly to Parliament (as occasionally had been the case)"
  • "Under Lord Eldon, the Court procedure was further reformed with a pair of orders published in 1741 and 1747, which mandated that a claimant who brought his case to court and had it dismissed immediately should pay full costs to the other side, rather than the 40s previously paid, and that parties filing bills of review should pay £50 for the privilege."
  • "The 1830s saw a reduction in the "old corruption" that had long plagued the court, first through the Chancery Sinecures Act 1832 and then through the Chancery Regulation Act 1833."
  • "The 1833 Act changed the appointments system so that Masters in Chancery would henceforth be appointed by The Crown, not by the Lord Chancellor, and that they would be paid wages. Through the abolition of sinecures, taking into account the wages and pension, this saved the Court £21,670 a year"
  • "When the Court was a part of the curia regis, the Officers were fluid; it could include Doctors of Civil Law, members of the curia and "those who ought to be summoned". As the members of the curia ceased to sit as Officers, however, the composition of the court became more solid."
• Minor MOS issues:
  • I think in the heading "Officers of the Court", "court" should not be capitalized, as it is not a proper noun
  • Same with "Other Officers of the Court", I think "officers" and "court" should not be capitalized.
  • I made a few minor fixes myself.
• Images:
  • File:The Court of Chancery during the reign of George I by Benjamin Ferrers.jpg - this appears to not be public domain in the UK, the presumably main audience for the article. It won't stop this article from passing this review, but you may want to consider finding a PD images.
  • File:Gal nations edward i.jpg - the source of this images is not stated on the image page. Is this a photo taken at the site, from a book, a website? Where did the uploader get it from?
  • File:Court of Chancery edited.jpg - no source or description is given for this image
  • There are no alt descriptions for any of the images. You should add one for each.

Marvelously written, well referenced. In my opinion this article is of near FA quality. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks kindly! Pretty good for a single draft, ehh? :P. In regards to the above; "recognizances" are these, the Court (since it's Court of Chancery, and is referred to throughout the article as the Court to distinguish it from the CEC, CCP, CKB et al) is simply standardised, as is "Officers"; all the references capitalise it, for example, since it was an official group of positions; rather than referring to officers of the court, it's referring to Officers of the Court (of Chancery), a formal body. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could do a first draft like that! :P Takes me a month to get a article looking half decent! Looks like you resolved my questions, except the image ones. Those will definitely be asked for in a thorough FA review. I am passing the article now. Great job! Keep up the good work. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)