Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 article was promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2020 [1].

Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Lord Goff of Chieveley. He was Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom's House of Lords for a few years, and is best known for establishing restitution and unjust enrichment in English law. To this end, he co-authored the authoritative textbook (Goff & Jones) on the area, and developed the common law as a judge.

This article was promoted to GA not long ago. Following generous comments and encouragement from the GA reviewer and a peer reviewer, I've decided to nominate it for FA. I'd be very grateful for any comments or feedback. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
The source given in the box is meant to apply to all the details: crest, escutcheon and motto. The photograph follows the written description and is therefore heraldically correct. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Header image is NOT copyvio from [2], which was published at a later date. The image appears to have been published at Commons first.
Thank you. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Working on a source for your first point. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ergo Sum

[edit]
  • The first paragraph of Early life: I got lost on who the subject of some of the pronouns were, but it seems to be dwelling a bit excessively on his father's military career.
  • I'm hesitant to remove the information about his father, because I think Goff's military background and upbringing have an effect both on his personality and his judicial policy. I have, however, used the word "Lionel" in the first two lines to make it clearer that the paragraph is about Robert Goff's father. Any discussion of Robert himself starts in the next paragraph. Does this work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence about his relationship with each of his parents could be rephrased; reads a bit awkwardly to my eye. Maybe an intro to the effect of "he had a closer relationship with his mother than father", then go into the explanation without casting it as an explicitly causal matter.
  • "with a place to study at" Oxford. This sounds very unusual to my ear. Perhaps this is a Britishism. But for the context, I wouldn't know what it means.
  • It says he's off to Oxford, but then says that the same month, he was drafted into the military. The first part should mention that he intended to go to Oxford but that plan did not materialize (until later).
  • I've rewritten it as "he left Eton in December 1944, having received an offer of admission to New College, Oxford, after he completed his military service." Does this work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a little unclear to me now. Did he receive an offer before leaving Eton that would be redeemed after his military service? It's a minor point, but seems worth clarifying. Ergo Sum 18:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Truthfully, I used the language of the source I cited. I'm quite sure that he was given an offer, but that it was valid only upon his completion of military service. I'm rewriting it as "having received a deferred offer of admission for after he completed his military service." This is standard language with admissions offers in the UK, but I hope this isn't a Britishism... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his Tutor included"...proceeds to list two people. This is case disagreement, no? Should not it read something like "among his tutors were..."?
  • Capitalization. E.g. bar, tutor. In know in American English, these are not capitalized. Is this a feature of British English?
  • Capitalization of "Dean". I believe MOS:CT advises against such capitalizations.
  • Lots of official positions and future titles of nobility are put in parentheses following an individual's name. This breaks up the flow of some sentences. I wonder if they could be simply offset by commas in the case of the former and left out altogether (but link the name) in the case of the latter.
  • "refused to the book in all." Is this a typo?
  • "on weekends" doesn't need to be parenthesized.
  • The two sentences about Queen's Counsel can be joined.
  • "trademark intellectual development". Use of the word "trademark" made me double-take in this context, since there is discussion of common law vs. statutory law. I'm sure a synonym can be found.
  • This is inadvertently a great catch on a different point. The discussion is actually between the common law and the civilian legal systems. I realise the ambiguity in the sentence: "common law" could be read in its other sense, as the body of law produced by the courts. Goff's strongly-held view was that as the (English system of) common law is developed by judges, it can evolve incrementally, whereas legal development in civilian legal systems relies on legislation and so is more clunky. The point on suspicion of codes and legislation is because of the greater emphasis that civilian legal systems place on them. I will use a different word for "trademark" and also address this ambiguity. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "closer together" should be "more closely together".
  • When describing him as warm and kind, it may be advisable to tweak it so that it reads "he was also described as...", so as to avoid any POV.
  • I don't know if there needs to be a separate header for later years when it's only two lines.
  • I'm hesitant here. This was originally a section on its own, but I merged it into the earlier section for the reason you've given. My hesitation is because this is a key part of his life story, and I feel as though this warrants a clear signpost, instead of a reader having to find it under a section about Personal Life. Does this sound reasonable? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, an interesting read and a quality article. Nicely done. I expect to support once these matters are addressed. Ergo Sum 01:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergo Sum: Thank you for your comments. Would you have a look at my responses and let me know your thoughts? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all sticking points addressed, I'm happy to support this article. Ergo Sum 18:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

[edit]

Will definitely review this but it will take me a few days to have the necessary time. KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General
  • Copyvio - You'll see that Earwig, a very handy tool, is showing "79.4% match Violation suspected", to the Beatson Tribute, [3]. A lot of this is quotes/titles etc. which aren't a problem, but there are some instances where the paraphrasing is a bit close for comfort, e.g. "did not share his father's interests and refused to shoot after his eighteenth birthday". It would be worth trying to remove these.
  • Ah yes, I didn't realise. Interestingly, I had originally paraphrased that exact line quite differently from how it's now written. Another reviewer pointed out that it sounded clunky. I subconsciously then reworded it back to its original phrasing. I've paraphrased some of the very similar phrases. Earwig still indicates a 77.7% suspicion for match violation but that might just be because I organised the page very similarly to the Beatson tribute. The rest of it is very standard; titles, quotes, case names, lines like "which were published in 1978 and 1986". Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • "Scots Guard" - "Scots Guards"? - Not my turf, but I've always heard it as the Scots Guards, and the Wiki page redirects "Scots Guard" to "Scots Guards". You call it Guards in the Military service section, so we need consistency at least.
Lead
  • Citations in the lead - Personally, I prefer not to have them, as it's an easier read without. You've used them for direct quotes, and I know many do, and have done so myself, but I don't actually think they're a requirement, if they're repeated, and cited, elsewhere in the body, which would be my preference, MOS:LEADCITE. But it is possible I'm wrong on this. I know it was discussed at GAR, so leave if you prefer.
University education
  • ""Tutors" - l/c "t"?
Academic career
  • "Apparently in equal astonishment that Goff needed to think about the offer, Murray granted the time, following which Goff accepted the offer" - I'd probably drop the second, repeated, "the offer". I'm also not quite sure about the double "astonishment"? Does it quite have the "encyclopedic" tone? That said, it's in the cite.
Goff & Jones on the Law of Unjust Enrichment
  • For comprehensiveness, and for the benefit of the general reader, could you do a line or two on the central concept of Unjust Enrichment. It's something like the UE article, "when one person is enriched at the expense of another in circumstances that the law sees as unjust".
  • "Not knowing where it fit" - "Not knowing where it fitted".
Career at the Bar
  • "there was very little small work for junior barristers at the commercial Bar" - this is another one where the paraphrasing is uncomfortably close (indeed exact). It's also one that won't be clear to a non-specialist who won't necessarily understand "small work".
  • Good point. I've removed most of the line and merged it with the next line. It now reads: "He described his time as a junior barrister as "lean", because at that time, the bulk of cases went to senior barristers, who tended to have almost permanent junior barristers assisting them." Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Judicial career
  • 1.b. - Comprehensive - as discussed on the Talkpage, I think what's missing here is a summary of Goff's leading cases, both "legal" and "national". I know you're working on this.
Fostering links with foreign jurisdictions
  • "visiting Jaisalmer Fort, among others" - is the fact that he did a bit of sight-seeing really notable? Particularly as it's cited to an unverifiable photo.
  • You're right; I just thought it added a nice bit of intrigue. I have access to the photo (indeed many photos of Lord Goff) but dealing with copyright has been complicated, which is why they're not up on the page. An earlier version (indeed the version that was promoted to GA) had many more photos. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Work with the Inns of Court
  • "a committee of Benchers, including Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Lord Chancellor) and James Callaghan (a former Prime Minister)" - is it worth making clear that Callaghan was an honorary Bencher?
  • Do you mean making clear that Callaghan was a Bencher or that his appointment was honorary? If you mean the latter, I wouldn't put it in because it is the intuitive conclusion and also it doesn't really make a difference to what the sentence is trying to convey. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • "They had four children: Katharine (1959), Juliet (1961), William (1964, d.1967) and Thomas (1966)" - not convinced that lists of the article subject's children are appropriate, unless they themselves are Notable. Perhaps, "had four children, one of whom died young". Or some such.
Arms
  • Does the coat of arms need to be quite so big!?
Images
  • I know you've had a image review, so I'll only observe, in relation to the book cover, that I once got into trouble when I uploaded a photo I'd taken of a book dust jacket, as it was held that it infringed copyright. Here, there's no dust jacket and no image, so you should be fine.
References
  • Cite 9, Wildy & Sons, seems odd. Is it doing anything beyond proving the book's existence? If it isn't, would Worldcat do, [4]? Some FAC reviewers object to commercial book-selling sites, particularly Googlebooks.
  • Cite 11, Diplock - does the Cite need an attribution in the References? I know it is attributed in the main body but to me, it looks a little odd without one in the Refs.
  • Cite 29, photo - not convinced by this (see above).
  • Resolved, as above.
  • Cite 36, Sarah Cousins - was this privately published? Not sure it meets RS, even though SC was his wife?
Overall
  • It's a great first FAC. Prose is high-quality, coverage is good. For me, a bit more on the leading cases, and the ironing out of a few instances of close paraphrasing, will bring my support. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with the above. The only thing I’m not seeing is a “Major cases” summary, which I think Kohlrabi is working on. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: Sorry this has taken me so long! I've now done a section on cases of significance, split into those cases which were of national significance, and those of legal significance. I've added detail to the former, but not the latter. I find it difficult to place the latter's significance in terms that would mean anything to a lay reader. For instance, there's Westdeutsche Landesbank v Girozentrale which outlines the circumstances in which resulting trusts arise, or Spiliada v Cansulex, which is one of those legal heavyweight cases establishing the doctrine of forum non conveniens in English law. You can see a sample of what it might look like here. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies too, and to the coordinators. A combination of work and personal life is proving demanding just at present. I think your additions on the important case are excellent, and I’ll be pleased to support. One quick thought. As they form mini-paragraphs, do they needs cites to conclude? I shall move onto the Source review as quickly as I can but tomorrow and Wednesday look pretty dire work wise, so it may be a few days. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP1! I've added case citations for each paragraph - does that work? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does, and the case summaries are exactly what I think is needed. Which sorts my comments/queries, so very pleased to Support. Shall now move to the, much -delayed, Source review and spot check. Apologies - and I promise it will be done today. KJP1 (talk) 09:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • The lead is a little short for the length of the article.
  • Suggest linking barrister in the lead. Not all English-language legal systems have a two-tier profession.
  • You need to introduce Stephenson so the reader knows why his opinion is important.
  • And you need a reference after a quote, even in the lead.
  • described it as "admirable" You need a reference for the quote
  • The book's propositions, however, caused some confusion "However again"
  • In the latter year, Goff was appointed to the House of Lords.[1] He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1987, and would go on to hold Honorary Fellowships at three Oxford University colleges: New, Lincoln, and Wolfson. I'm not sure it's wise to break the chronology.

All in all, excellent work. Certainly no insurmountable hurdles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you for your helpful comments and encouraging words, Harry. I've resolved most of your comments, bar two. Would you let me know what you think? Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harry? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many apologies. I'll be back in the next day or so at most. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. Yes, I believe you need a reference for the quote in the lead (per WP:V: All quotations [...] must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. As for the chronology, now I look at it again I don't think it's an issue. Support, pending a reference for the quote. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added references for both quotes in the lead section. Thank you for your thoughtful input, Harry. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

As this is a first FAC, we should have a spot check of sources as well as the source review. Also @KJP1: to return for his concerns? And we need HJ Mitchell's concerns addressed. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, I have exams at the moment but I'll resolve all these concerns when my exams finish next week. I mentioned this to Ian Rose, apologies for holding things up. Some of KJP1's concerns are still unresolved - I'll resolve that next week too. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In order to save a little time, while Kolhrabi’s sweating their exams, I’ll pick up the Source review. KJP1 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Just a friendly ping to say that all the reviewers' concerns have now been resolved and a spot check and source review done. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

To include spot checks - marker from KJP1 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and source referencing
  • Source 1, Beatson - I fear this is going to tee you off, but the 30-odd pages of Beatson's tribute support some 90 references, from his birth on page 246 to his declining health on page 272. Would it help the reader to cite the page numbers within the text? There's definitely guidance somewhere on when you should cite page numbers within an article, obviously not necessary with a single-page newspaper article. I'll try and find it.
Haha, I did think of doing this but I was concerned that it would result in an extremely long list of citations, and that I would have to redo the citation each time I used the tribute. (unless I'm missing something on how citations work) I could instead do this: where the Beatson tribute has referred to something else to support a claim, and where I've made that claim in the Wikipedia article, I could replace the citation with the original, i.e. the one Beatson cites. Would this work? Alternatively, I would be happy to redo the citations indicating page numbers, that's no problem at all. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 2 - re. the above, here you do cite the PDF page numbers, out of the 164 in total, which is helpful.
  • Sources 5/7/11/18/24 - 5 has Goff as "Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff, Baron" while in Source 7 he's lost his barony, "Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff", while in Sources 11/18/24 he's plain Robert Goff. Your choice, but it should be consistent.
This is a complicated one. I'm going to split them up based on the titles he had at the time of writing/delivering them. I hope this split approach makes sense.
  • Source 5, 11, 21 and 24 now read: "Baron Goff of Chieveley, Robert Goff".
  • Source 7 now reads as "Goff, Robert". At this point (1966), he was still a junior barrister.
  • Source 18 now reads as "Goff, Sir Robert". It's from 1983, by which point he was a Lord Justice of Appeal and so had been knighted. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 6 (as an example) - In the sfn system, which I love but others loathe, it's easy to link authors, such as W. R. Cornish. It's absolutely not a requirement, but you do have a number of authors who have their own Wikipedia articles.
  • I'm not familiar with that. How might I do this? I've just used the cite function on visual editing, which tells me to "authorlink", and I have no idea what that means... Kohlrabi Pickle (talk)
Yeah - it's a bit more complicated than sfn, but I've done 2 and 4 for Tomlinson. Don't worry about it. I'll do them. KJP1 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much - I'm grateful for the help. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 7- Here, you've used a url, giving the Worldcat link. Personally, I like and use these as I think they help the reader verify things, although other esteemed editors do not. But for other books, e.g. Sources 37/40, you've not given the urls. I think we need to use them consistently, or not use them at all.
Nope - although you can get to Worldcat via the isbn, if you want a direct link, you need to insert a url. I've done this for Before Memory Fades. Again, don't worry about it - I'll do the other books. KJP1 (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 8 - Tom Denning? A little informal?
  • A fair point. I tried to find the original journal to see how he signed off but it proved impossible. I've changed it to "The Lord Denning, Tom Denning", in accordance with the title reflected on the UK Parliament website here: [5]. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 12/13/32 - here you have truncated titles, "The Brimies" etc., but elsewhere e.g. Sources 20/34, you give the full case title. I think we need consistency. Personally I think the full titles are preferable. The links to Bailii are excellent. Can any of the other cases be so linked? Lastly, 12/13 and 32 have unitalicized titles, while the other case headings are italicised. I think they should all be.
  • I wanted to ask your opinion before proceeding with this because I'm struggling a little. I can't find a suitable Wikipedia template for citing English cases. The "cite court" template is designed for American cases and formats the date, volume and page so that it doesn't match England & Wales case citation conventions. If (as I have done with the leading cases), I simply write out the case citation applying E&W conventions, then I'm not quite sure how to link it to Bailii. Should I just add a link to all the text as I did with citation 12? Or should I do it something like citation 13? If I do it like citation 12, it looks messier, and I'm not sure whether there is some convention requiring me to reflect when the link was retrieved. If I do it like 13, then I lose the ability to italicise the case name. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it seems surprising there’s no UK equivalent. I’ve asked another editor for advice. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked. I'm not sure what I can do to help. You could, I suppose, add a link after the citation, manually.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, KJP1 Might it be useful for me to create a new template and apply that here? It'd be another first for me and I'm not sure what the process is or how long it takes, but English cases have rather standard citation conventions, so it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with the parameters. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 14 - I'd be inclined to amend the title. I don't think "New date" is properly part of it.
  • Source 16 - I think you need the key symbol here, to indicate it's paywalled.
  • Source 19 - Sir Jack here has his knighthood which he's missing in Source 1.
  • Source 26 - Is this dated?
  • I'm unfortunately not able to find the date. I know it's from the Society of Legal Scholars online newsletter, and I know it is on page 39, because I managed to retrieve a physical photocopy of it, but the newsletter itself is behind a password protection, so I can't find out which issue it was. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 28 - Not paywalled, but not generally accessible either. Does this need to be indicated?
  • Source 31 - I think you need the BBC in there as the publisher.
  • Source 36 - Prabhat Prakashan is an Indian publisher, but the isbn takes me to a Google Book snippet that shows this was published by Ocean Books. A subsidiary?
  • Source 37 - My guess is that it's Hay House India, which is based in New Delhi, [6]. But if Worldcat says they don't know.... Although with other books, Sources 36/40, you don't have publishers' locations in, so you could always leave it out.
I found a different WorldCat link that fills it in as New Delhi. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 40 - here, you've got the location, Kibworth Beauchamp but not the publisher. I think they're Matador, [7]. This throws up a bit of a concern, as they're a self-publishing outfit, although I don't think they're on Wiki's proscribed list. Nevertheless, they probably don't have the editorial controls that a mainstream publisher would. Given the recent frenzy over high-quality sources, are there other sources for the post claims they support.
This claim is also in the Beatson tribute. Changed the citation to that. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 41 - I'm also a bit dubious about this. What is it? I assume FEM Publishing is Francis E Miller Publishing, i.e. the author. Ruthtrek doesn't look like a usual publisher. "England and Wales" is a rather loose publisher location. Again, is it some sort of self-publishing outfit? Who is Francis Miller and why are they writing an open letter to Lord Goff? The tone is rather odd. If there's a stronger source, I'd use it.
This is also in the Beatson tribute. Changed the citation. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have to break off now, but Batch 2 will follow. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlrabi Pickle - Think we're nearly there on the Sources. As above, have asked for advice on citing UK cases and we'll see what comes back. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Sources 3 and 12 the same, just with Goff differently titled? KJP1 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, aren't 2 and 4 the same? KJP1 (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right. I've merged both sets. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're ok on the legal cites now, and thanks to Wehwalt for looking in. I've done them in a way that is consistent (I hope!), and allows readers ready access to them for Verification. It would be better if we had a citation template for UK legal cases, like the US one, but we haven't. So - for the purposes of the Source review with spot checks - I'm done. Apologies to you, and to the Coordinators, for this, and the review, taking a lot more time to complete than I'd originally planned. Who knew Lockdown would end up being so busy. KJP1 (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
  • I've checked the 25 online sources (1/2/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/23/24/28/29/30/31/32/33/34/38/39/42/43) and am quite satisfied that they support the material in the body of the article. Although Kohlrabi's a first-time FAC nominator, I think the article shows excellent use of a comprehensive range of high-quality, up-to-date, reliable sources (excepting the minor concerns set out above regarding Sources 40 and 41). KJP1 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Robert_Goff,_Baron_Goff_of_Chieveley/archive1&oldid=966590364"