Talk:Court of Common Pleas (England)/GA2

GA Review

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

Nice work overall, but not entirely without issue. The following portions of the article need clarified or corrected before I feel comfortable passing the article.

• Several WP:WTA complaints.

I specifically noticed the phrase "An interesting position", which needs replaced, and the sentence "The troubles during this period are best illustrated by Slade's Case.", a claim that needs either attributed or rephrased.

Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The High Court was reorganised into the Chancery, King's Bench and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Divisions; the Court of Common Pleas ceased to exist in any form."

This sentence is quite ambiguous. Was the court reorganized into the Chancery, the King's Bench and Probate, and the Divorce and Admiralty divisions, or the Chancery, the King's Bench and Probate, the Divorce, and the Admiralty Division? (Note that if it's the former situation, "divisions" should not be capitalized.)

• Neither, actually; the Chancery Division, the King's Bench Division, and the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division; I'll clarify in the text. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  "The Common Pleas' jurisdiction was over "common pleas" any cases where the king had no interest, which in practice meant cases between subject and subject. This included all actions taken under Praecipe to recover debts or property, the vast majority of civil cases."

This one appears to be more straightforward in terms of meaning, but needs its grammar corrected just as strongly. Should be "The Common Pleas' jurisdiction was over "common pleas," cases where the king had no interest. This in practice meant cases between subject and subject, including all actions taken under Praecipe to recover debts or property, which made up the vast majority of civil cases." or the equivalent.

• Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Technical terminology.

The terms Exigenter and Filazer need defined on first appearance, not paragraphs later. Serjeant should be linked in its appearance in the lead.

Serjeant is linked. Exigenter and Filazer have been fixed, sorta. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, the page prose as a whole could use some tightening up, but not to such an extent that I'd prevent it from going green.

For now, this page on hold.

Reviewer: erachima talk 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Passed, per addressment of my concerns. --erachima talk 09:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)