Talk:Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nicholas Fuller (lawyer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

On first reading it looks like a strong article, with just some minor problems of uncited quotations and a couple of stray casual terms slipping into the otherwise good prose.

Just to clarify my hertofore strange working methods: I've dotted the article with citation needed tags, most on quotations and sometimes on more remarkable instances that are uncited. Minor prose or grammatical problems I've changed myself.

1. Where is there a requirement that quotations have citations immediately following them? Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

   WP:CITE#When and why to cite sources says "Cite sources when: ... (2) quoting someone". I've always taken this to mean that you place the citation for the quotation ASAP in the text, even if if means the same source is cited for two sentences running. Other people's views may vary. Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

One outstanding issue I invite comment from other editors on is the image. I understand that this subject, for reasons of age, is difficult to illustrate with a portrait. However the only picture is of another barrister, at first glance I thought it was Fuller. What do editors think about having the sole picture of someone other than the subject in the article?

1. You're unlikely to get a comment, given a GA is normally between two individuals.

   Hello folks (popping up just to prove Ironholds wrong... - I've had this watchlisted in the hope / expectation I can soon add it to Portal:ENGLAW as a Good Article, but was reluctant to review it myself because I'm in danger of only ever reviewing Ironhold's excellent GA submissions!). I think it's fine to have an image of an important relevant person at that point in the text; it might be different if it was being used as a lead image, but it's not. Carry on, chaps. Bencherlite^Talk 16:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

   Righto; fixed, I think. Ironholds (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

2. Taglines exist for a reason. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's one dab link, currants. Can you confirm that it leads to Zante currant?

1. Ahh, my bad; thanks. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

3.These is from the final section: This was apparently greeted with complete silence, possibly because, while the MPs agreed that civil liberties had been eroded, they felt it was too dangerous to reclaim them.

Though this is cited, this sentence assumes the point of view of the author. It be more encyclopeadic it could be re-phrased, X reports that this was recieved with complete silence, perhaps because, Stephen Wright argues, while MPs....

On 23 February 1620, Fuller died at his home, Chamberhouse, in Thatcham, and was buried at its church on 2 March. - Whose church? His private chapel at home or the village's? I am not sure which after reading this sentence.

4. I find the second paragraph of the "Leader of the opposition" section to be problematic, the text is copied below and my comments are in bold:

Although Fuller did not standing for election to the commons in 1597 immediately after its dissolution leaving Parliament in 1597, in 1604 Fuller he was returned for the City of London in the first Parliament of James I. What did he do in the intervening seven years? Return to the law? He was highly active in opposing the government, to the point where academics consider him the "leader of the opposition", although this was not a formal title at the time. During his first year, Fuller opposed the impositions on currants, the patent on blue starch, presented a petition on economic grievances (which delayed the passage of the subsidy bill), supported the restoration of removed ministers and further attacked the powers of the Court of High Commission.

In 1606, the government announced plans for a formal union between England and Scotland. This was treated with great suspicion by Prefer "in" here. The commons is a collective, not a single entity the House of Commons, and Fuller took the lead in opposing it. Although he used racist language, saying in December 1606 that "the Scots in other countries as more like pedlars than merchants", the quotation has not been properly weaved into the sentence here, it does not make gramatical sense. There is a verb missing: perhaps "behave in other countries", "are seen in other countries.." this was aimed at drumming up support from racist elements, and academics who? name them conclude he was not himself racist.The word "racist" is repeated thrice, good style suggests synomn(s) should be found His main concern, rather, was over economic issues. Fuller argued that the Scottish merchants would undercut and impoverish English ones, and that the markets could not handle such an influx, saying that it was "fit that we seek room to place them in before we admit them". There was also a legal and constitutional element. The proposal was to allow all Scottish citizens, born before or after the union, to become English citizens, exercisable through the Royal Prerogative. Fuller argued that this right was only exercisable by Parliament, and believed that the extension of the Royal Prerogative would lead to future encroachment on the civil liberties of English citizens. Did he make the economic and constitutional arguments explicitly at the time or merely rely on the xenophobic cry?

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie-dokie; give me a poke when you've got your review done. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed all the other concerns; in answer to the questions:

1. Did he make the economic and constitutional arguments explicitly at the time or merely rely on the xenophobic cry

   "Fuller argued" and the fact that there are quotes of him mentioning economic issues kinda makes that clear.

2. What did he do in the intervening seven years? Return to the law?

   See the preceding section of the article. Ironholds (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)