Talk:Trial of Lord George Gordon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Choess (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lead

Where the lead quotes Gordon's indictment, I think I would prefer to say simply "indicted for levying war against the King" and leave the quote further on. I would not be thought an ignoramus, but I think the full pomp of the traditional language of indictment a little over-mighty in an introduction.

Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to say that Gordon was accidentally assisted by the Attorney-General, to emphasize that the deed was not intentional. The article should link not just to the article on the Attorney-Generalship, but to the then holder of the office, James Wallace (politician). I would say "incorporate it" rather than "bring it" WRT constructive treason and statute law; I think it might also be appropriate to link statute law. "This result, met with..." feels like an odd construction to me; I think it should read "This result, which met..." Also, "disquiet the population had" might better be abbreviated "popular disquiet". "Law as it stood" is unclear; "as it stood" makes me think of the text of the statute law rather than the judicial extension it's meant to refer to. Also, "led to" repeats from the previous sentence. I would rewrite as "This result...left juries unwilling to convict under the doctrine of constructive treason. As a result, the government was forced to incorporate the doctrine into statute law." I would add a sentence on Kenyon's fate at the end: "Kenyon was chosen to replace Wallace as Attorney General at the next change of ministry."

All added; tell me what you think. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"At the time" is confusing here, because it clearly refers to a time predating the Gordon riots and subsequent trial. Perhaps, "Prior to the passage of the Act"? I would end the sentence with "academic standing." and proceed "These concessions were made in part to encourage Catholic enlistment in the military."

It should probably be noted that at the time of the petition and riots, Gordon was himself an MP. A parenthetical note should be added to explain why the mob attacked the house of LCJ Lord Mansfield (he had been reluctant to judicially enforce the measures repealed by the 1778 Act, IIRC.) Change "Lord Gordon" to "Lord George" and place a period instead of a semicolon after "high treason". It would probably be best to add a sentence afterwards to explain how Gordon's actions could be construed as war against the King under the doctrine of constructive treason; see Wallace's explanation to the jury as reported in Gent. Mag..

All fixed, I think. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

"went to trial against" is an odd phrase. Can we say "was arraigned by" Atty-Genl. Wallace to indicate the start of his trial? His plea of "not guilty" should I suppose be noted. "reduce...to ridicule" should probably be "expose...to ridicule". I would say "offset" instead of "countered," which seems to me to imply the two blunders were directly poised against one another. Instead of "no amendments should be made," I would say "the definition of treason could not be extended by judges". The next sentence could then begin "Notwithstanding," and drop the en-dashed parenthetical and end the sentence. Clarify "accepted this"; perhaps "accepted this reasoning"? Solicitor-General Mansfield made a reply to Erskine after his speech and his role in the prosecution should be noted.

All fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"received with pleasure", not "accepted". "judge-made" is awkward; perhaps "judicially invented"? There's a bit of dynamic tension here between popular disapproval and government incorporation of the doctrine; do we have room for a sentence that explains the ultimate legal fate of constructive treason? "Acquittal" is misspelled. The bit on Kenyon is rather random; Master of the Rolls was an intermediate point in his career. As with Erskine, I'd have one sentence delineating the height of his career (LCJ) and his general judicial character.

All fixed, except for the "ultimate legal fate" bit - It's rather a long way on from the case itself. Ironholds (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I don't have access to the printed works/journal articles. Some are partly searchable in Google Books, and I can't detect copyvio in those. The sources appear to be scholarly and reliable, and the material in the article is congruent with contemporary accounts of the trial, etc. Would like to know a little more about how Wallace botched it, as the material I've found wasn't very explicit. Was it really Wallace's fault, or was it Erskine's cross-examination that undid the prosecution witnesses?

Broad coverage

Certainly meets this. There are a few things I'd like to see added (career of Kenyon, presence of Solicitor-Genl. Mansfield at the trial, fate of doctrine of constructive treason) but they're not strictly required by GA criteria. See also Christenson, who mentions additional participants in the trial.

NPOV

Seems reasonable; the only thing the article really inveighs against is the doctrine of constructive treason, and it's pretty universally held that the doctrine constituted overreach.

Stable

Mostly small copyedits since created on June 3. Don't see much potential for edit-warring, unless S—— shows up and decides it needs a "balanced" picture of Gordon as some kind of anti-Catholic Eichmann.

Image use policy

None of the images are non-free, although the portrait of Erskine is one of those NPG-disputed ones. All 3 images are relevant and captioned.

See what you can address, and I'll take another look. Choess (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of it (I may have missed some things, with the recommendations all being bunched into paragraphs of prose - bit tired). Let me know if I left anything out. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was tired too. Take a look over my last edits; I added a bit on what happened between Erskine's speech and verdict and a few other things. There's just one more thing you might be able to clear up: right now, our article says that the 1778 Act removed bars on Catholics from more or less everything but serving in the military, and then says it was to encourage them enlisting! I think the implication here is that the statutes were irregularly enforced and they'd already been letting Catholics into the enlisted ranks for some time, but that presents an obvious contradiction to the reader. I assume Donovan gives the clarifying context; can you winkle enough out of him to resolve the paradox? Choess (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, my bad; the implicit concessions allowed for military service. Is it clearer now? Ironholds (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little bit based on another of Hibbert's works. Good to go, I think. Choess (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing, thanks a bunch Choess :). Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]