Wikipedia:Peer review/Gray's Inn/archive1

Gray's Inn

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd eventually like to get it to FAC. No idea if that'll happen, but I can hope.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/about/innsofcourt/graysinn/
  • http://www.indopia.in/India-usa-uk-news/latest-news/85733/International/2/20/2
• Current ref 55 lacks a page number
• Current ref 90, don't run the publisher into the link title and the author should be listed also, its Markku Peltonen
• Has nothing been recently written on Gray's Inn and its history? Mot of your historical works are from before 1950, just supplemented with a few journal articles from later than that.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 21:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: This is the first instalment of my comments, mainly on the prose. They cover the lead and the first few sections.

• Lead
  • I find the first sentence a bit convoluted and overlong, and would suggest a split. It also needs to establish that the Inns are in London (mentioning High Holborn and Gray's Inn Road may not be helpful to non-Brits). I suggest something like: "The Honourable Society of Gray's Inn, commonly known simply as Gray's Inn, is one of the four Inns of Court in London. To practise as a barrister in England and Wales, an individual must belong to one of these courts." (note: to be "called to the Bar" and "to practice as a barrister" amount to the same thing. This is adequately explained in the first section of the article.)
  • "...a site of accommodation and offices..." - a bit obscurely worded. Suggestion: "...a place of living and office accommodation..."
  • Benchers should be linked. Treasurer can also be appropriately linked check this edit window.
  • "...with a record of this dated from 1391." I'm not quite sure what this phrase means, but in any event there is no follow-up to this statement in the body of the article.
  • The sentence beginning "During the 15th and 16th centuries..." is another example of an overlong sentence that would benefit from splitting.
  • It may be advisable, for the benefit of those less well versed in English history, to provide dates rather than references to the reign of James I and the beginning of that of Charles. The same point applies to mentions of events such as the English Civil War and the Restoration.
    • Fixed all. Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Role
  • "Although previously a disciplinary and teaching body, these tasks are now shared between the four Inns..." What was "previously a disciplinary and teaching body", and what "tasks" are now shared between the four Inns? (I suspect that "these tasks" would be better worded as "these functions"
  • The paranthetical words "in fact" are unnecessary
  • Last sentence: far too many commas (and again too long). I suggest "The Inn remains a collegiate self-governing, non-incorporated association of its members, providing within its precincts library, dining, residential and office accommodation (chambers), along with a chapel. To some extent members of the Bar outside the Inn may use these facilities"
    • Fixed all. In my defence the last sentence certainly isn't mine - far too POV-esque.

(Note: I won't mention excessive sentence length again, but it would be worth your checking the rest of the article to see if this tendency persists.)

• History (preamble)
  • after "education" an ndash, not a hyphen, is required, although in this instance a colon might be better.
  • English language purists disapprove the adverb "firstly" and prefer a simple "first," followed by a comma. Stranely, this disapproval doesn't extend to "secondly", which is OK.
• Founding and early years
  • "can therefore not be verified" → "cannot therefore be verified"
  • Baron Grey of Wilton: is there any history relating to a change of spelling? For example, was the Inn once known as Grey's Inn?
    • Not as far as I know. Poor handwriting and aged parchment means that family names change a dozen times in different books. I was writing an article on a 14th century priest called William Paull a while back (or William Pagula. Or William of Pagula. Or William of Paull. Nobody can make their mind up). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A comma is required after (or inn), and perhaps then, "called the Manor of Portpoole."
  • MOS: use double not single quotes around "commons"
  • Earlier it is said that the records of Grays Inn were lost up until 1569. Now we have: "Records from 1437 show that Gray's Inn was occupied by socii, or members of a society at that date." What records were these?
  • Again in the second and third paragraph we have information which appears to contradict the statement that the Inn's records were lost. Would it be more accurate if the original statement said that "most of the records of Gray's Inn itself are lost up until 1569"?
    • Nope, all records were lost; fire does that to paper. These are outside records; a sale of land to/from the king, for example, is shown in the king's records. I've noted in the first instance that these are outside records.
  • There are lengthy lists of names in the second and third paragraphs. These people individually do not appear to be notable, so I wonder if it is necessary that readers should have to plough through them?
    • I've cut them down to the "notable" ones; the redlinks, mostly (writing articles for them is on my to-do list). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
    • All other points dealt with. Thanks so much for all this :). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

More later Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment

• Elizabethan golden age
  • First paragraph: Three sentences in close proximity begin "During..." ("During the reign of Elizabeth I...", "During Elizabeth's reign...", "During the Elizabethan age...". Some variety of expression advisable (particularly as the second paragraph starts with "During...", too)
  • Does Queen Elizabeth need "herself"?
  • "...The Misfortunes of Arthur by Thomas Hughes, is considered to be the most impressive masque..." - is considered by whom?
  • Inns of Chancery: it might be advisable to explain what these were, rather than relying on the link. Likely otherwise to be confused with Inns of Court.
  • "...working towards a degree, graduate and be admitted to one of the Inns of Court." This would read more easily as "working towards a degree, and be admitted to one of the Inns of Court after graduation." Also, suggest remove overlinking on "Inns of Court"
  • "...before seeking admission to the Inn of Court his Inn of Chancery was tied to" Awkward phrasing, suggest "before seeking admission to the Inn of Court to which his Inn of Chancery was tied". This should be followed by an mdash not a hyphen.
  • "...to supervise bolts"??
  • "court - after" needs to be an ndash not a hyphen, but I would go for "court, and after..."
  • Perhaps avoid the repetition of "weak" by using a synonym, e.g. low, poor, deficient etc.
  • Watch overlinking - "moots" was linked in the previous paragraph
  • "that the Inn is noted for" → "for which the Inn is noted."
• Caroline period and civil war
  • The Caroline era and the reign of Charles I are synonymous. It reads as though the reign was just the start of the Caroline period. A little rewording would give: "At the start of the Caroline period, when Charles I came to the throne, the Inn continued to prosper."
  • Using the inflation template, £21,000 in 1634 has a current value of £2,536,000, Some party! I think this information should be included. Check this edit window for this: (current value £4,440,000)
  • Some links required on the lordly titles, for the benefit of non-Brit readers
  • Perhaps Holdsworth could have a brief introduction rather than just a link?
  • Hyphen violation after "three things"
  • Second paragraph: I have made one small change, but the prose here reads somewhat heavily and repetitively. A proper copyedit would tighten it considerably. A few suggestions:-
    • Delete "as they would in a reading or lecture."
    • "did not have the opportunity" → "denied themselves the opportunity"
    • Replace "Since students now had a way to learn without attending lectures, they..." with "Eventually, students..."
    • Revise final clause, suggest: "and secondly because many were keen to avoid the work of preparing a reading, which cut into their time as practising barristers."
  • Was not the decline in prestige or prosperity, rather than "prospects"?
• Restoration to present
  • "This can be linked to the end of the practice of the landed gentry sending their sons to study at the Inn with no intention of becoming a barrister." A mite clumsy. Suggestion: "This fall in numbers was partly because the landed gentry were no longer sending sons who had no intention of becoming barristers to study at the Inn."
  • Can you clarify the point being made with the comparative ratios? I believe (but I'm not sure) it means that in 1615 only one in 13 of students who studied at the Inn became barristers whereas by 1713 this had become one in 2.3. Is there a way of making this point more clearly. There is particular confusion when you say the ratio had "fallen".
  • The Civil War and William III's reign were 50 years apart, so it's quite odd seeing them linked in this way. Its a bit like saying that the Second World War and the premiership of John Major were jointly responsible for something (!)
  • "It may have been more serious than that, however,..." - non-encyclopedic phrasing, needs rewording
  • "Several" reasons turns out to be two. The significance of the second of these reasons is not immediately clear
  • "It is unfortunately not recorded" Sounds POV
  • "but a further discussion in 1762 the Inns adopted..." A word is missing somewhere.
  • I am not sure of the relevance of the Danby Pickering sentence. What point is being made here?
  • What does "bound to take Anglican rites" mean. Presumably not ordination. Does it simply mean confirmed as Anglicans?
  • MOS hyphen violation after "fellows".

All right, that's the history stuff all done. More in a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All corrections done, now. The 50-year gap makes sense if you're looking at it from a family point of view rather than as the fortunes of an individual; the coffers were repeatedly hammered by events (comparatively) close together. I've tried to explain this point with a tweak to the text. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Third instalment

• Structure and governance
  • "At the time Gray's Inn was the odd one out amongst the Inns, who did not recognise..." A slight adjustment needed: "At the time Gray's Inn was the odd one out amongst the Inns; the others did not recognise..." etc. Then "and had Benchers" not "and who had Benchers". In the parenthetical note at the end of the sentence "are" should be "were"
  • Hyphen violation after "Gray's Inn" (I'll stop pointing these out, but please look for others)
  • "In Gray's Inn the Readers, when they existed, were required to attend" Clarify what they were required to attend (meetings of the Pension, presumably)
  • Masters of the Benche"? Or is the "e" a typo?
  • Delink Treasurer; the redlink isn't required, the term is linked in the lead.
• Readers: no issues beyond the couple of hyphens
• Benchers
  • The caption refers to F.E. Smith, without identifying him as Lord Birkenhead, per the article text.
  • There is overlinking of terms like "moot" and "barrister" which are already copiously linked.
  • "originally simply" - lose the second adverb (and also the comma after "Inn", to keep the sense of the sentence.
  • "for whatever reason" sound a little off-hand, perhaps. Maybe "for unknown reasons"?
  • "should be afforded the same rights and privileges that they were, although without a voice in Pension." This confused me, though I worked it out. It means: "should be afforded the same rights and privileges as those who were, although without a voice in Pension." Needs rewording accordingly.
  • End of first paragraph: "reader" needs capitalising, for consistency (suggest check for other discrepencies)
  • I have converted two lots of hyphens to mdashes
  • "The English Civil War marked the end of legal education at the Inns, although the government attempted to persuade Readers to continue by threatening them with fines..." Can you clarify "the governmnet"? Is this referring to the Commonwealth period under Cromwell?
  • "with the Benchers paying a fine of 100 marks because they refused to read, a practice that still continues." Please clarify: Benchers today who refuse to read are fined 100 marks?
  • "Noted Benchers of Gray's Inn include..." – and then just one example. Could you mention a couple more, not counting the honoraries?
  • Could we have a date for Churchill's appointment? (if you don't have it I'll consult a biography)
• Badge: I'm not sure the description in heraldic language helps anyone. Why not just say: "The Badge of Gray's Inn shows a gold griffin with a black background."? The link is helpful here.

Right, just the grounds and buildings, then I'm done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done, no idea about Churchill I'm afraid. Out of interest, do you think this is FAC-worthy? Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally: (note: I have made a number of fixes myself)

• Buildings and gardens - preamble
  • The map caption does not identify the buildings and walks of the Inn
  • "...and by 1586 they had added..." Can you identify "they"?
  • "...no buildings should be built..." sounds clumsy. Suggest "nothing should be built"
  • The word "let" can be used instead of "renting out"
• Hall
  • "...rebuilt during the reign of Mary II,[70] and again during the reign of Elizabeth." If you really mean Mary II, she reigned (as part of William and Mary) long after Elizabeth, so "and again" is wrong.
  • Possible further historical confusion in this paragraph. The Spanish Armada sailed in 1588, so wood from its galleons would not have been available until after then - yet the hall was finished in 1559 (when Elizabeth had been on the throne for a bare year).
• Chapel: no specific comments
• Walks: (last line) - I think "plane trees" would be better than just "planes"
• Library
  • "While several books were saved..." "Several" suggests a single-digit number, probably no more than half a dozen. I suspect rather more books may have been saved, some perhaps "several" could become "some" or "a number"
  • In 1883 a new library was built, and in 1929 another new library was opened. Any reason why the 1883 building was so quickly inadequate?
  • "funder" or "founder"? "Funder" , if that is intended, is a rather odd word - perhaps "benefactor" would be more euphonious?
• Notable members: It would be good to get away from Bacon and Lord Birkenhead - perhaps som eother notable lawyers should be mentioned here. There is rather too much use of "such as" in the list that follows, and a bit of redrafting might make for smoothe reading.
• Images: It would be a good idea to consult an images expert about the licensing of some of these images. I am not an expert, but I know that sometimes copyright of old images is retained, even though the author has been dead for over 100 years. Much depends on the original publication date. Also:
  • File:1stEarlOfBirkenhead.jpg: Licensing - how do we know that the photographer died before 1939?
  • Your lead image and the image at the end of the Caroline section appear to have identical filenames although the pics are quite different. I don't know if it matters but I thought I'd point it out.
  • Some of your image captions are rather terse, and could be more informative.

That just about does it. If you have any queries about this review please ping my talkpage as at the moment I am unable to watchlist all my reviews. This is a pretty nice article, and with some final polishing could do well at FAC. It might be an idea to get another editor to copyedit it through – I'd offer myself, but don't have time at present. If however you were to wait until November before the FAC nom, I'd be able to help then. Good luck with it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)