Talk:Statute of Monopolies/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 13:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Lead
- "Normally seen as a key moment in the evolution of patent law ...". I'm unclear what "normally" is implying here.
- "The Statute repealed all past and future patents and monopolies ... Even with the statute in force ...". The word "statute" is inconsistently capitalised throughout the article; I personally wouldn't capitalise it all, just as "bill" isn't capitalised here: "James I was in the later stages of the bill supportive of its principles".
- Background
- "Over the next century, this became a more common practice in England". It's not clear what the "this" is referring to here; is it the granting of full industrial patents discussed at the end of the previous paragraph, or is it the granting of letters of protection?
- Act
- "The most important part of the Statute is Section 6, which laid out ...". The conjunction of the present tense "is" and the past tense "laid" jars here.
- "odious monopolies" is quoted twice in the final paragraph, which seems a bit ott.
- Significance
- "not only did the Statute of Monopolies only restate the previous common law ...". The "only ... only" looks a bit awkward. What about "merely restate"?
- Bibliography
- Is the author's surname Pile as it says here or Pila as it says in the citations?
- All should be fixed; yup, Pila, not Pile. Ironholds (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Everything looks fine to me now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.