Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Court of Chancery/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:44, 23 February 2010 [1].

---

Court of Chancery

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Court of Chancery/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dab link, to court of first instance, but that appears to be intended. Could you perhaps make the court of first instance article a stub on the general concept of a court of first instance?
  • No dead external links.
  • Alt text is mostly present, except for File:Court_of_Chancery_edited.jpg.
• Ucucha 00:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I unfortunately don't really have the sources to do a CFI article justice. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The dab link remains. Ucucha 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed, see my point about sources (and legal pun :P). Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Please fix the article so that it does not contain invalid HTML. See the article's W3C Validator report and Help:Markup validation #Invalid character at start of identifier. Eubulides (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this an FAC requirement? I've never had it asked of me before, but I've patched the flaws regardless. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a special requirement just for FACs, but it's good to fix, and thanks for fixing it. Eubulides (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Image check: 7 images, all are marked as public domain due to being from the 1800s ergo 70 years+ have passed since the death of the artist. Two of the images 1 and 2 are additionally marked as being among the images that were challenged by the museum whose scans were ripped and assembled to make the pictures; that said, Wikimedia's position is that they are still public domain, so they are fine. All images have good captions. --PresN 21:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment"Complaints were normally brought via a bill or petition, which had to show that the common law did not provide a remedy for the problem. It was in French, and later English, rather than the Latin used for common law bills.[10] " I know what you mean but phrasing needs work.Genisock2 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Another very good piece of work from Ironholds, who is fast becoming (if not already) the premier editor of high-quality legal history articles for Wikipedia, following on from William Garrow and Gray's Inn. He asked me to drop by since this FAC was under-reviewed and he remembers that I'm a lawyer (although not a chancery practitioner). I had in fact already read through the article having seen it here at FAC, but had been too lazy to comment earlier. Here are some preliminary thoughts:

• Sources those that are used look to be appropriate and reliable - a selection of books and journal articles from the past and more recent. I did think that I might see Sir John Baker somewhere here - has he written on the topic? Some of Baker's works are used in Court of Common Pleas (England), for example (an article that I see has your fingerprints on!)
  • Ugh, don't remind me; awful article! I'll pull out a copy of some of Baker's work today when I'm in the library. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Aaand done. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Categories – perhaps Category:14th-century establishments and category:1875 disestablishments could be usefully added.
  • Done. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Prose - I think some improvements are necessary. I'll see what I can suggest, probably not all in one sitting though. I'll start with the first section, "Origins"
  • "The Court of Chancery originated, as did the other High Courts of the time (the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of King's Bench), in the Norman curia regis, or King's Council, maintained by most early rulers of England after 1066" - sentence feels rather choppy with all those commas. Also "of the time" - of what time?
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Under the feudal system, the Council was made up of the Great Officers of the Crown (Chief Justiciar, Lord Chancellor and Lord Chamberlain), the Monarch and any who the Monarch allowed to attend" - Is there a workable wikilink for feudal system? Also, feels a little odd to have the monarch listed after the officers.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "It soon became apparent that this large body, which regularly contained lawyers, peers and members of the Church, many of whom lived far away from London, was too unwieldy to deal with the nation's day to day business" - seems to be two sentences jammed together, might be better as two sentences separated out.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "as the personal staff of the Lord Chancellor, 'a great secretarial bureau, a home office, a foreign office, and a ministry of justice'". - Might be clearer to add "who have been described as" or something.
    • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "but at the time he had no specific jurisdiction to deal with them" - who, the LC or the MR? Both have been mentioned immediately beforehand.

I will try and do more tomorrow, but I can't spend more time on this tonight I'm afraid. Bencherlite^Talk 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • Fixed. Many thanks for your comments :). Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Great article - but rather a lot of long sentences with subordinate clauses. These often require two or more reads to get the meaning (for those unfamiliar with the subject).

• eg; From the time of Elizabeth I onwards the court was heavily criticised for its slow pace, large backlogs and high costs, which remained a problem until its dissolution despite large amounts of reform, particularly during the 19th century, which mitigated it somewhat. or it would read more easily if which mitigated it somewhat was after reform..
  • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• This sentence, Until the 19th century, it was able to give a far wider range of remedies, such as specific performance and injunctions, than the common law courts, and also had some ability to grant damages in special circumstances. suggest putting than the common law courts after remedies.
  • Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport hamiltonstone (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
• This looks like great scholarship, but as a non-lawyer, comprehension can be a challenge, beginning with the first few words: what is a court of equity? I'm just not sure a wkilink is adequate, when we are dealing with a concept crucial to the article's subject.

  Fixed, hopefully; I also gave a sorta-explanation of where "equity" came from as a term. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt, although "sorta" is the word. In some ways, it just shifted my puzzlement, to the question why is the common law "inequity"? Maybe it is the best that can be done. Maybe others will have a view. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Long story; basically, as silly as it sounds, the common law was considered relatively slow to evolve and fixed (I know, sounds silly. The big advantage of the common law is that it's adaptable) and so equity evolved as an alternative. There is a more full explanation below about the idea of conscientious law, etc etc. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was some out-of-control overlinking. I've fixed a bunch of it, but there's more.

  Would you be able to pinpoint particular words? Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• maybe i got most of it, but check major terms like Lord Chancellor, House of Lords, common law, House of Commons. I htink Lord Chancellor was linked about 20 times. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Should be fixed. House of Lords appears four times in the whole text; the reason it's linked is because it actually refers to two different bodies depending on the section (the legislature versus the court). Ironholds (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The success of the Code Napoleon and the writings of Jeremy Bentham are seen to have had much to do with this". With what?

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "was under vast amounts of criticism for its procedure and practice. During the 16th century the Court was vastly overworked; " Ugh. Repetition of "vast"; and "vast amounts of criticism" sounds ugly anyway.

  Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• "The Chancery had administered this from an early age" - this sounds odd because of its context - guardianship of children - as though it might mean from the early age of the children in question (which i assume is not the intention).

  Fixed

• "It is commonly believed that the Court of Chancery could not grant damages until the Chancery Amendment Act 1858, which gave them that right," - this describes the Court in the plural ("them"), but elsewhere i see "it". Choose the correct language and stick to it throughout.
• Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• IIRC, the Chancery - and its efficiency issues - were indirectly the subject of major Dickens novel Bleak House. Is that not worthy of mention in recounting the criticisms and reforms of this court?
  • Quite possibly; thanks, by the way, for your comments so far. The problem is that I don't have a copy of Bleak House. Any chance you can link me to a piece of criticism or whatnot that makes the assertion? Ironholds (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Should end up an outstanding article. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it turned out to be simpler than that: Dickens wrote a short preface to Bleak House, which is all about how he wasn't making this stuff up, and the Chancery was a hopeless institution. Strong stuff. I've added a couple of sentences to try and give it the feel. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Brilliant, thanks! Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm with Jonathan Swift where lawyers are concerned and try to avoid the law whenever possible, but I do have a few comments to make on this interesting and informative article. Rather than clutter up this FAC I've put them on the talk page, because I'll probably have quite a few over the next day or so. Obviously though I've got no objection if SandyG, Karanacs, or indeed anyone else would prefer to move them here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The no doubt irritating issues I raised have been very patiently dealt with, and to my satisfaction, so I'm happy to be the first to support this article's nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Someone had the bright idea of suggesting to Ironholds that the article might benefit from a prose review by Malleus, and the article has greatly benefited from his suggestions and personal polishing. As my only real concern was that the fine prose could be improved to brilliance, I am happy to support. Bencherlite^Talk 20:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.