Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Edward Coke/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 list was not promoted by GrahamColm 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Edward Coke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it's great? I'm not sure what to write here, except that I'm very proud of the article and look forward to the review :). Ironholds (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from George Ponderevo
- "It was not a common surname, being limited to one family, but the family itself was relatively respected". I'm not at all sure what you're trying to get at here. If the surname had been common the family would have been respected automatically?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The origins of the name prior to that are uncertain". That a few people before before Coke had the same surname in no way explains the origins of the surname. And are the origins not still uncertain?
- "... theories are that it signified a river among early Britons". The river was among early Britons?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Francis Bacon, his main competitor, was noted as a philosopher and man of learning, but Coke had no interest in such concepts." Was it really the concept he had no interest in, as opposed to the subjects?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "... the Third Amendment, on the other hand, takes influence from the Petition of Right." Strangely unidiomatic. Why not "is/was influenced by"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Coke argued that the judges of the common law were those most suited to making law, followed by Parliament, and that the monarch was bound to follow any legal rules. This was because a judge, through his professional training, internalised what Alan Cromartie referred to as 'an infinity of wisdom' ...". What exactly is the "this" at the start of that second sentence referring to?
- That the judges were most suited to making law. As with the tears comment (see below) I'm struggling to understand the confusion, but I appreciate I'm probably more familiar with the text and the subject than most. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This" could refer to Coke's argument about the judges, the comment about the position of the monarch, or why he put forward the argument in the first place. Beginning a sentence with "this" almost always leads to ambiguity. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That the judges were most suited to making law. As with the tears comment (see below) I'm struggling to understand the confusion, but I appreciate I'm probably more familiar with the text and the subject than most. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha; fixed :). Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke's theory meant that certainty of the law and intellectual beauty was the way to see if a law was just and correct ...". In what sense was Coke's position a theory?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "... he was summoned before Elizabeth I, who berated him to the point of tears before confirming him as Solicitor General." Who was in tears? Elizabeth or Coke?
- I'm struggling to see the confusion, here; how many times in literature have you seen someone cry from shouting? :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing what you've written, not what I've ever seen. It's quite possible that Coke was one of Elizabeth's favourites, and it pained her so much to berate him that she was in tears. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing what you've written, not what I've ever seen. It's quite possible that Coke was one of Elizabeth's favourites, and it pained her so much to berate him that she was in tears. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm struggling to see the confusion, here; how many times in literature have you seen someone cry from shouting? :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the Harv links are broken: #3, #107, #189, #219, #228
- Fixed; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite fixed. Three entries in the Bibliography aren't used as citations: Campbell (2002), Ibbetson (1984), and Simpson (2004). George Ponderevo (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite fixed. Three entries in the Bibliography aren't used as citations: Campbell (2002), Ibbetson (1984), and Simpson (2004). George Ponderevo (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; my apologies. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "king" capitalised in sentences such as "Coke himself attended divine service with the new King on 22 May ...", but "monarch" isn't in "... the judges held their positions only at the pleasure of the monarch."? George Ponderevo (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 'King' is a title, while 'monarch' is not. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- King is only a title if it precedes a name, such as in "King John", not otherwise. George Ponderevo (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- King is only a title if it precedes a name, such as in "King John", not otherwise. George Ponderevo (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 'King' is a title, while 'monarch' is not. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from George Ponderevo
I still don't think this is quite there yet:
- "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case." I don't think that's saying what you intended it to. The phrase "that invalidated Cromwell's case" is modifying the immediately preceding pleadings, in other words the pleadings that invalidated Cromwell's case as opposed to some other pleadings. Probably what you meant to write was "The case was actually two actions, with the first judgement being given in Denny's favour after Coke's research found a flaw in the pleadings, which invalidated Cromwell's case."
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke retired to his estates, where he revised and finished his Reports and the Institutes of the Lawes of England before dying on 3 September 1634." As opposed to revising and finishing them after dying?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "... her sister Audrey was married to Thomas Gawdy, a lawyer and Justice of the Court of King's Bench with links to the Earl of Arundel, a connection that later served Edward well. Winifred's father later married Agnes, the sister of Nicholas Hare." Later than what?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "After being called to the Bar on 20 April 1578 Coke immediately began practising as a barrister. His first case was in the Court of King's Bench in 1581". Handling his first case three years after being called to the bar doesn't seem like "immediately" to me.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Morice was placed under house arrest, and seven Members of Parliament were later arrested". How much later? Is the word "later" even necessary?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In reaction, Coke decided to bring charges of treason against Devereux". In reaction to what?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "... the Cokes immediately began ingratiating themselves with the new monarch and his family. Elizabeth Hatton, Coke's wife, travelled to Scotland to meet Anne of Denmark". It seems odd to start talking about the Cokes before we've been told that Coke had married.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke's behaviour during the trial has been repeatedly criticised; on this weak evidence, he called Raleigh a 'notorious traitor' ...". what weak evidence? Evidence of Coke's behaviour, which is what it looks like?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The conspirators were all sentenced to death and died through various means." All eight were hanged, drawn and quartered, so what are these "various means"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not entirely convinced. Would you trust me to make a few changes myself rather than my keep adding to this review? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convinced of what? And, sure, although you picked a pretty odd time to ask ;p. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convinced that this is a plausible FA. But I'll leave it to Wehwalt, sorry for bothering you. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me leave you with one last thought Ironholds. Do you seriously believe that "James VI of Scotland set out to claim the English throne as James I of England" makes any sense at all? George Ponderevo (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now fixed. I appreciate that communications standards can be...flexible, on-wiki, but can I ask you to (in future) point out flaws with the article clearly rather than with unnecessarily passive-aggressive edit summaries? I'm perfectly willing to fix the article up when people politely bring me concerns: it's worth noting that this article contains prose I wrote a good four years ago, and copyediting has never been my forte. Your attitude here has been completely unnecessary. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest that it's your attitude here that needs to be corrected, not mine. I have simply pointed out examples of where I believe the prose falls short of what ought to be expected of an FA, and I have even offered to help with the copyediting, but given your aggressiveness I will not be offering again. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies if I misunderstood, then. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A conditional apology is no apology at all. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm. I'm apologising for stating that your comments were unduly rude, conditional on your comments not actually being rude. I'm sorry if this is 'no apology at all', but it'd be somewhat nullifying to insist I apologise for stating your comments were unduly rude even if they were unduly rude :). Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A conditional apology is no apology at all. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies if I misunderstood, then. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest that it's your attitude here that needs to be corrected, not mine. I have simply pointed out examples of where I believe the prose falls short of what ought to be expected of an FA, and I have even offered to help with the copyediting, but given your aggressiveness I will not be offering again. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now fixed. I appreciate that communications standards can be...flexible, on-wiki, but can I ask you to (in future) point out flaws with the article clearly rather than with unnecessarily passive-aggressive edit summaries? I'm perfectly willing to fix the article up when people politely bring me concerns: it's worth noting that this article contains prose I wrote a good four years ago, and copyediting has never been my forte. Your attitude here has been completely unnecessary. Ironholds (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convinced of what? And, sure, although you picked a pretty odd time to ask ;p. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not entirely convinced. Would you trust me to make a few changes myself rather than my keep adding to this review? George Ponderevo (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John
- Family background and early life
- Why is England linked (twice) from the infobox?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "members of the family from the 1400s" Are we talking about the decade or the century?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " it was simply an attempt" Dislike "simply"
- "was pronounced "kuke" during the Elizabethan age itself, although it is now pronounced "cook"" - what is the difference?
- If someone wants to help me IPA that, I'd be most grateful :). The practical difference is Kuke as in Puke versus Cook as in book. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even worse now! "The name "Coke" itself was pronounced "kook" during the Elizabethan age itself, although it is now pronounced "cook". Makes no sense to me and what are those itselfs doing? --John (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even worse now! "The name "Coke" itself was pronounced "kook" during the Elizabethan age itself, although it is now pronounced "cook". Makes no sense to me and what are those itselfs doing? --John (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to help me IPA that, I'd be most grateful :). The practical difference is Kuke as in Puke versus Cook as in book. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "but this is most likely simply because the names" Simply again!
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "One estimate by Allen Boyer is that Edward was the fourth child based on baptism registers." Sentence needs recast to avoid ambiguity
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is England linked (twice) from the infobox?
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check for doubled periods caused by templates
- If you can see them, would you mind pointing them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Block and Pound. You'll only be able to see them in read mode, as one period's hand-entered and the other automatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Block and Pound. You'll only be able to see them in read mode, as one period's hand-entered and the other automatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can see them, would you mind pointing them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Boyer 2004: italicization is backwards (applies to all chapters from this book)
- That's a flaw of the template rather than the article. If you can point to a better way to represent essays within a multiple-author work I am happy to use it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the chapter parameter for the essay title and the title parameter for the work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha; great :D Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the chapter parameter for the essay title and the title parameter for the work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a flaw of the template rather than the article. If you can point to a better way to represent essays within a multiple-author work I am happy to use it :). Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check consistency of wikilinking in Bibliography - for example, Cambridge UP is linked in Caldecote but not Allott or Baker
- Fixed (or should be). Ironholds (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations to Campbell 2002, Simpson 2004, Ibbetson 1984
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Campbell 2005: I believe Elibron is a replica publisher, so check if there was a previous one
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corwin 1929: quotes within quotes
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include publisher and page numbers for journals in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup; trying to, but on occasion I can't identify the publisher. I'd rather display additional information than less :). Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, all, for your comments :). work is...more hectic than I had intended it to be this week, but I will try to get to this stuff in the next couple of days. Ironholds (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sarnold17
Sarnold17 comments collapsed here
|
---|
Hello; I find this to be an excellent and interesting article on a very important Elizabethan-era Englishman. I look forward to giving this my support. I'm working my way through, and will likely have a boatload of comments, primarily dealing with prose. Some of the comments likely spring from my incomplete understanding of English as used by the English, so please help me learn.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Lead
Family background and early life
Education and call to the Bar
Practice as a barrister
I'm taking a break and will return with more comments later.Sarnold17 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Here is my next round of comments (will try to finish on 29 Jan).Sarnold17 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Politics
Solicitor General and Speaker
Attorney General
Common Pleas
Court of High Commission
Dr. Bonham's Case
King's Bench
Return to politics
Monopolies
Petition of Right
Following are the last of my comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Retirement
Personal life
Reports
Institutes
Jurisprudence
General
|
Comments from Wehwalt
Quite good and engaging, but I have my usual list of quibbles:
- Lede
- Consider including in parentheses the alternate name of the ex officio oath, simply because the Star Chamber is well-known.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Family background
- "The name "Coke" itself ..." Consider putting this sentence in a footnote.
- "something that later served Edward well" Perhaps "a connection that later served Edward well" ? It's not quite certain whether the something is the connection to the Earl, or the marriage.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " and daughters second" I'd cut this as unneeded.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Winifred remarried to Robert Bozoun" Which Winifred?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A property trader, Bozoun ..." this sentence gets between the influence and the evidence thereof, and I suggest it be moved slightly. Perhaps, "Robert Bozoun, a property trader and a member of an old family. Noted for his piety and strong business acumen (he had once forced Nicholas Bacon to pay an exorbitant amount for a piece of property), Bozoun had a tremendous influence on the Coke children." You could even consider cutting the new parenthetical ...
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "little is known" Three times in three sentences. I suggest you vary one phrase diversely.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Inns of Chancery, including Clifford's Inn, served as a place of initial legal education" On balance, I think a plural form is better ("a place") although granted, I can see a case for the other. Consider rephrasing to avoid.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "other pieces of high culture at the Inns" This sounds a bit odd to me, but perhaps it is just me.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Practice as a barrister
- If he began is practice immediately in 1578, how was it his first case was not until 1581?
- Making yourself available for work is not the same as getting it, particularly for new barristers. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "forcing them to start the case anew.[38] Cromwell brought the case again, " a bit repetitive.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "paid off any royal clerks" Paid off? As in bribed?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "see off" seems a bit informal. Perhaps "oppose" or "defeat"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the Third Duke but the 4th Duke? And a link to the treacherous one?
- Fixed, but your first sentence confuses me. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " his third was Slade's Case," His third what? Famous case?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke's argument in the case formed the first definition of consideration." Wouldn't it have been the judgment, which presumably incorporated his argument?
- Sure. And....? Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Politics
- "Coke had earned the favour of the Dukes of Norfolk ... With their support, " Were there several Dukes of Norfolk at a time?
- It's referring to the family rather than multiple dukes. Can you suggest a better way of phrasing it? Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and thanks to the influence of the Cecil family" As this is the first you've mentioned them, it's not clear why they should exert themselves on behalf of Coke.
- It's also not mentioned in the sources :/. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although confirmed on 28 January 1593, he did not take up his post until the state opening of Parliament on 19 February 1593, a position he held at the same time as that of Solicitor General." Problem with this sentence.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The idea of a peaceful, swift Parliament" given that the purpose was to impose taxes for war, "peaceful"'s a bit jarring. Quiet?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "due to religious problems." Perhaps, "due to religious conflict"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "as Speaker of the House of Commons (whose job was to introduce any bills)" If his job was to introduce bills, how is it the bills which caused all the trouble were introduced?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "a day of respite". Perhaps "a day's delay"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "opened up" somewhat informal phrases such as this are slightly jarring, perhaps because of the 16th century subject matter.
-
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " A day later a group of emissaries led by Thomas Egerton and John Popham were sent to him and taken hostage." Huh?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The material concerning Devereaux perhaps can be cut a bit?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- James I
- The phrasing used implies there was doubt that James would be able to successfully claim the throne, but this isn't backed up in the article.
- Er. Can you give an example? Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the new royals." Surely James was royal from birth?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Judicial work
- " known as Fuller's Case after the defending barrister, Nicholas Fuller." This can be read to say that the case was named after the barrister who had the defense in it.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke's first case of note was Peacham's Case" I'd insert a "there" somewhere in this phrase.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " which saw the King's actions as him tampering with justice." I would omit "him"
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Return to politics
- James's action in ordering Coke's re-election seems so surprising (especially in light of subsequent events) that it almost begs for further explanation as to motivation.
- Again with the link to Cecil! And title! I think he appears often enough that he need only be linked on first appearance
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would mention the term "letters patent" much higher in the paragraph. People may think of "patents" in a rather different sense.
- In the sense of patent law? People would be right to think of letters patent in the sense of "patents". As that paragraph explains, the letters patent are the source of the patents system. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to me to be inconsistent in your capitalisation of "crown".
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Coke was briefly restrained from acting in Parliament by Charles;" I would cut this phrase, it is implied in the rest of the sentence.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the person, for all others are accessory to it" I don't see how this fits the rest of the quoted matter.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "eventually rejected the Resolutions formally" I would boil this down to "rejected the Resolutions"
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coke then undertook the central role" Strike "then" I would, especially since the last action was Charles' rejection
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The resulting debate led to some MPs being unable to speak due to their tears, fearing that the King was threatening them with the destruction of Parliament. " In modern parlance this sounds a bit hysterical. I suggest quoting from some contemporary description, if you have one.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "eventually affirmed". As the timespan referred to is between April and 17 May, suggest "eventually" can be dispensed with. I would give the year, it's a significant date.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Retirement
- "effectively retired" Perhaps just "retired"?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal life
- "through which" picky, but there's nothing that this refers to.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I gather Elizabeth predeceased Coke, but probably you should be clearer about this. (the infobox confirms this)
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Writings
- I'm not thrilled about the firstly and secondly; it looks odd and I wonder why one firstly and the other secondly? Is there a ranking?
- No, just one of my idioms; fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should Institutes and also Reports be italicised in the Gest quote?
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "His Law Reports, known as Coke's Reports, were an archive of law reports" perhaps one "reports" can be massaged out. This sentence can profitably be divided.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "four of which are still lost" strike "still", I would.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " by copying out and repeating cases found in earlier law reports, " This sounds like verbatim copying, how is it original work?
- The fragment of the sentence you miss is "started out by". It would be an impressive temporal achievement for Coke to report his own cases using reports written before he came to the bar. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although lent to friends and family," slight disconnect in this sentence, the initial phrase should refer to the subject, which in this case is Coke, not his reports.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "While the Reports were intended " this sentence could also advantageously be split.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are also factual inaccuracies;" I suggest you buy a Coke for this sentence and place it somewhere therein.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jurisprudence
- " Alan Cromartie referred to as "an infinity of wisdom"" I would think something from Coke would be better suited here, since it is an important point we should hear from him.
- Primary sourcing and quotations makes me leery. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "John Selden" I would either remind the reader of who he is or else link again. It's been a while.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bacon has played a major part in this article and need not be linked again.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "play with it". I do not find this a pleasing phrase, as it implies arbitrariness (or perhaps capriciousness).
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy
- It might be worth mentioning that Casement was found guilty. A "1916" tossed somewhere in there might be helpful to the reader, who has been wandering among the Jacobeans.
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Character
- The description of Coke as something of a poor courtroom lawyer seems rather different than what I had pictured based on the biographical sections. Possibly he worked best from a script.
- General
- A script tells me that Campbell, Ibbetson, and Simpson, listed in the bibliography, are not used.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aa77zz
- In the Bibliography section it would be better if each journal article entry included the first and last pages of the article – in addition to a specific page number in the References section. Aa77zz (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, with the exception of one (Vermont Bar Journal) that seems to have vanished from the internet. Ironholds (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegates' comments - The nominator has been slow to respond to the comments and reviews, and it would be a shame to see this nomination archived because of this. We are all overcome by real life issues at times, and this might be the case here. I would be grateful if the nominator could indicate when progress is expected. Graham Colm (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By my timing you posted this after I'd made fixes today ;p. I hope to finish the existing reviews tomorrow. Ironholds (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've indicated to the nominator that I am unlikely to have time to re-examine the article until at least late next week, as due to the delay, I'd have to start from scratch. No opinion on the present state of the article, which I have not examined.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If Wehwalt can commit to reviewing shortly, I'd agree that this review still has some life in it, otherwise I think we'd have to say that after remaining open almost six weeks without consensus to promote, it'd need to be archived and another attempt made some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've indicated to the nominator that I am unlikely to have time to re-examine the article until at least late next week, as due to the delay, I'd have to start from scratch. No opinion on the present state of the article, which I have not examined.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support This is a well-researched, well-structured, and well-written piece about a very important Englishman whose influence continues to be felt well beyond the British Isles.Sarnold17 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems that the nominator has neither the time nor the inclination to address the work that still needs to be done for this article to meet the FA criteria, and in particular criterion 1a. George Ponderevo (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused; all the fixes you asked me to fix, I've made, promptly. When you've come in at 11 in the evening my time with a niggle, I've fixed it hours later. Where do I lack time or inclination? Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Promptly? You've been missing for most of this FAC, and have yet to address my fundamental concern, the quality of your prose. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; work has been hectic, and I have apologised for that. You'll note that I have made myself very available over the last week and a half, occupying almost all of my editing time with getting the article up to scratch. I am happy to address your 'fundamental concern' - the quality of my prose - when you bring up specific issues, as I have demonstrated by fixing the queries and quibbles you have raised. To be blunt, I'm finding this oppose very hard to take seriously coming from an editor who barely 24 hours ago described his state as "Convinced that this is a plausible FA" and, citing his own lack of time, asked Wehwalt to serve as his proxy vote - only to turn up now, after I objected to your tone, to not only vote directly but express some skepticism that the article is even fundamentally workable as a candidate. It smells a lot like sour grapes. As I've said, and as I've demonstrated, if you raise specific issues with the prose I am happy to correct them. Simply stating that the quality is insufficient is unhelpful for our readers, our editors, and our collaborative processes. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have consistently objected to the quality of prose in this article, for more than a month now, and you have consistently proven yourself unable to meet the challenge. I have even offered to help, only to be insulted by postings such as the one above. Where on Earth did you get that "sour grapes" idea from anyway? Are you suggesting that I'm incapable of getting an article through FAC? If you are, then you need to think again. This FAC ought now to be archived, and brought back when cooler heads than yours can prevail. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting that your rather vehement oppose came primarily because I objected to your tone. You have consistently raised individual issues with the prose, and I have consistently fixed them - in what way is that not meeting the challenge? Should I have instead focused on issues you had not brought up? And yes, you offered to help, and I was very grateful for that. I disagree that the FAC should be archived; I agree I'm probably not in the least-possibly-stressed mood right now, but I would suggest the same is true of you. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may of course suggest whatever you like, but I'm not the nominator here, you are. And you have failed to address my prose concerns and have spurned my offer of help. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I've addressed every individual concern you've raised, and again, your offer of help was most welcome. But we're clearly not getting anywhere here; I'm going to go write some code for a few hours. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could give you a laundry list of problems with this article, and maybe you could go through that list and fix everything, and then I'd more than likely come up with another list, because your fixes weren't fixes at all. Articles brought to FAC ought to meet, or be close to meeting, the FA criteria, and this one isn't IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You probably could. Or you could simply point out where my fixes weren't fixes (or suggest fixes you are comfortable with). Again, I find your oppose unconvincing, being as it is a total reversal of your tone barely a day ago. But it's no skin off my nose if this is failed; I'm comfortable with the article. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could give you a laundry list of problems with this article, and maybe you could go through that list and fix everything, and then I'd more than likely come up with another list, because your fixes weren't fixes at all. Articles brought to FAC ought to meet, or be close to meeting, the FA criteria, and this one isn't IMO. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I've addressed every individual concern you've raised, and again, your offer of help was most welcome. But we're clearly not getting anywhere here; I'm going to go write some code for a few hours. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may of course suggest whatever you like, but I'm not the nominator here, you are. And you have failed to address my prose concerns and have spurned my offer of help. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting that your rather vehement oppose came primarily because I objected to your tone. You have consistently raised individual issues with the prose, and I have consistently fixed them - in what way is that not meeting the challenge? Should I have instead focused on issues you had not brought up? And yes, you offered to help, and I was very grateful for that. I disagree that the FAC should be archived; I agree I'm probably not in the least-possibly-stressed mood right now, but I would suggest the same is true of you. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have consistently objected to the quality of prose in this article, for more than a month now, and you have consistently proven yourself unable to meet the challenge. I have even offered to help, only to be insulted by postings such as the one above. Where on Earth did you get that "sour grapes" idea from anyway? Are you suggesting that I'm incapable of getting an article through FAC? If you are, then you need to think again. This FAC ought now to be archived, and brought back when cooler heads than yours can prevail. George Ponderevo (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; work has been hectic, and I have apologised for that. You'll note that I have made myself very available over the last week and a half, occupying almost all of my editing time with getting the article up to scratch. I am happy to address your 'fundamental concern' - the quality of my prose - when you bring up specific issues, as I have demonstrated by fixing the queries and quibbles you have raised. To be blunt, I'm finding this oppose very hard to take seriously coming from an editor who barely 24 hours ago described his state as "Convinced that this is a plausible FA" and, citing his own lack of time, asked Wehwalt to serve as his proxy vote - only to turn up now, after I objected to your tone, to not only vote directly but express some skepticism that the article is even fundamentally workable as a candidate. It smells a lot like sour grapes. As I've said, and as I've demonstrated, if you raise specific issues with the prose I am happy to correct them. Simply stating that the quality is insufficient is unhelpful for our readers, our editors, and our collaborative processes. Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Promptly? You've been missing for most of this FAC, and have yet to address my fundamental concern, the quality of your prose. George Ponderevo (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate's comment - After six weeks there is no consensus to promote this candidate and I have decided to archive the nomination. Long reviews can deter new reviewers and a fresh start might benefit the article's prospects. Graham Colm (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.