Talk:Reform Act 1832

Reform Act 1832 was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 16, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 18, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 17, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 3, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 7, 2020, and June 7, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Third person

The article states that the Duke of Wellington spoke in the third person during a debate in Parliament. However is this really the case or did Hansard at that time record debates in the third person?--Britannicus (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources unrelated to the article subject say that Wellington wrote some letters in the third person, so speaking in third person is only a small step from there. Road Wizard (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had a look in Butler's The Passing of the Great Reform Bill and it quotes Wellington (on page 97) saying the same as in the article except in the first person.--Britannicus (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So we have two sources in disagreement. What are the details of the Butler source, and is it reliable? Road Wizard (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butler does not give a source.--Britannicus (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird expression

What does "politically vascular" exactly mean? Bazuz (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Scotland?

The changes for Scotland were even greater than those for England and Wales. But there is no article in Wikipedia. You found nothing interesting? Relevance only in things concerning England? --Wiskeps (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation

The article states "This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold, was never adjusted for inflation". But was there any inflation at that time? The pound sterling was defined as a fixed amount of mass (a pound) of sterling silver throughout that period, it was not debased. The amount of inflation I would therefore expect to have taken place, is zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarian.liber (talk • contribs) 18:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the availability of silver increase though? 64.252.52.243 (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Divers abuses"

May I just put a note here, to discourage people from wrongly correcting it as happens so often... The quote in the first paragraph talks about "divers abuses", not diverse abuses. For information, "divers" means "more than one" - it isn't even a synonym of "diverse". 195.171.114.69 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to edit this today as someone has put it back to "diverse" AGAIN and three times my edit has been reverted by editors. Why? Do they love quotes being wrong or something? 79.77.54.149 (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're a bad lot, these divers. To avoid divers repeat abuses, I've cited Wikisource. . . dave souza, talk 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, well found - thank you! 86.181.81.250 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafter

I can't really find a good place to slot this into the article but might be worth mentioning somewhere that William Gregson (barrister) is credited with drafting the act. ("He lived to be the barrister who drafted the Great Reform Bill" [1] plus other references in his article e.g. [2]). —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's a"freeman"?

There is a wikipedia disambiguation page: it's not clear what the sense is here, in this article. 1.159.58.220 (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a senior member of a livery company - see Governance secrion of the article. The pages that link to Freeman are unhelpful/not relevant. I'll take a look at clarifying. DeCausa (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link to list of acts

The link after "indexed as" (2 & 3 Will. 4 etc) goes to the wrong place. I cannot find the right place. Did the information that used to be linked get lost? Chhildeb (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]