Talk:Statute of Uses/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct

The prose is relatively good. There are a few concerns of sentences that run-on slightly or are a bit wordy, combining two topics which would be better served as two distinct sentences.

• The Statute was originally conceived by Henry VIII of England as a way to rectify his financial problems by simplifying the often-confusing law of uses, one of the applications of which moved land outside the royal tax revenue, traditionally gathered through seisin.

 Done Addressed

• Academics disagree on how the Commons brought around, with Holdsworth saying that the lawyers were swayed to support Henry, but an eventual set of bills introduced in 1535 were passed by both the Lords and Commons.

With regards to the second quote, "how the Commons brought around" should be reworded to be more clear.

In addition, I think the following section from the lede is made a bit unclear due to the included quote. Perhaps the quote is better suited for the main section.

 Done Addressed

• While most agree that it was important, with Eric Ives writing that "the importance of the Statute of Uses is beyond doubt. The effect which its provisions had upon the development of English land law was revolutionary, and from it have grown the crucial doctrines of the trust", some say that by allowing uses and devises in certain areas it not only failed to remove the fraudulent element from land law but actively encouraged it.

 Done Addressed

On a side note, while this is not a GA concern, it is a concern that should be addressed anyway. A few sections use passive voice to discuss content where active voice would be superior. I may try to address these issues post-review. An example is this section, which would be better as "but it again met resistance":

• The Parliament of 1532 saw another attempt by Henry to push the bill through, but it was again resisted; while the support of the nobility was valuable, it was useless in the Commons.

 Done Addressed; there may be more uses of passive voice, but this is not a GAC concern.

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

Solid all-around.

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout

Good

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

Almost perfect. There is one item I think is missing a reference in the final paragraph:

The reference is the same reference in the next sentence, so the citation is accurate.

• Academic assessment of the Statute was initially disparaging, with some saying that it added at most "three words to a conveyance", but it was understood to be important by lawyers of the time and in the modern era.

(c) it contains no original research

Well-referenced content

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

The topic appears to be covered.

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The topic does not go off on tangents but addresses needed content.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Neutrality is maintained while addressing both sides of the debate in the statute's passing.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Not even close to an edit war.

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

All images are public-domain.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

OK, but it may be reasonable to add an infobox similar to the GA Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907.

General comments

The prose could use a little work. It is not poor by any standards, but it is a little heavy. The concerns in the first section of the review summarize this problem. Overall, the article is good, it just needs a little trimming and a second look.

Overall

On hold while the above concerns are addressed.

Think I've got all of it; tell me if there are any passive voice concerns. The "unreferencedd" quote uses the Ives inline. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good after adjustments. Overall pass. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 10:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)