Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gray's Inn/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 article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:57, 24 October 2009 [1].

---

Gray's Inn

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Gray's Inn/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the required standards. To address a few points that may be brought up:

1. Age of the sources: Most sources were written between 1800 and 1920, it is true. This is because there has been little interest in the history of the Inns of Court since then, either because people feel it has already been written or simply because there isn't the interest. All of the sources are considered academically suitable, and can be found in the Selden Society Bibliography of the Inns of Court.
2. Lack of coverage of the 20th century: Again, few sources available. I have done the best that I can with tidbits from various books (an F.E. Smith biography, for example) and the Inn's website. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

1. Is there a grammatical error here? "In 1720 the old gate was replaced by "a pair of handsome iron gates with peers and other proper imbellishments",[92] The nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw few major changes, apart from the introduction of plane trees into the Walks.[93]"
2. Also, some parts of the article use "13th century" and some parts, like the sentence above, use "nineteenth" -- is there a reason for this? Chensiyuan (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

   Not seeing where the problem with the first bit is :S. I'll try and standardise the second part now. "reason" is "I can't standardise within my own work" :P. I can't wait until I finish my article on Justices of the Peace and have to work all the capitalisation out. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

   Fixed the second bit - also added in alt text, which I realised I'd forgotten for some images. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

   What comes after imbellishments is a comma, but "the" after imbellishments is capitalised. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

   Ahh, got it. I've changed it to a full stop to line up, since I can't think of a way of linking those two sentences. Thanks for catching it :). Ironholds (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support on sourcing. I went through the page before FAC and I performed a standard check. From what I could get ahold of, I see no problems with the sourcing and I have no concerns. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I did a pretty comprehensive peer review. My points were all addressed, and I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Of course I may have missed a few points, but I don't think there are any major issues. A solid, and interesting, piece of work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

PS - I have done some fixes on the alt texts, which were generally not in line with WP:ALT. Brianboulton (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - never really done alt texts before, since my last FA passed before they were required. Much appreciated. Ironholds (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment The image captions are well below the standard of the text. The article title should not appear in the caption if avoidable, but several captions include "Gray's Inn". The lead image, for example, could be captioned better and more informatively as "View of X Square" or "View from NE corner". "A map showing a birds-eye view of Gray's Inn in 1677" not only repeats the article title, but what is a map if not a bird's eye view? Better as "A 1677 map". "F. E. Smith, later known as Lord Birkenhead, a Bencher of Gray's Inn" - he became Lord Birkenhead. Better "F. E. Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, was a Bencher" If you could give his dates at the Inn, that would be excellent. Please review all your captions. I've made two small edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  There's sorta a compliment there :P. I'm correcting some of them now; a few, like the concern about the lede, I'm waiting on the word of others (such as the chap who took it. I can make my way around the Inn fairly well, but I've an awful memory for place names). Ironholds (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  I've fixed smithy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks; the guy who took the picture of X square can't remember where it is, and I won't be back in London until December. Suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  It's Gray's Inn Square, the much larger square to the north of South Square. I've fixed the caption, can't avoid using the article name, since it's part of the name of the square. Incidentally, your description doesn't mention that there are two squares, let alone name them! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  It's awkward to do so; unlike Lincoln's Inn the square setup has changed rather a lot over the last couple of hundred years, and it's difficult to a) describe them without a colour-coded map or b) find a RS that describes their current state. Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  If the squares are illustrated. you need to give the reader a context to those images. At present, there is no clue where they are. It's not that difficult to say that the current layout consists of two squares, Gray's Inn Square and South Square in the southwest corner of the Inn's gardens, with the remaining buildings lining the east and west sides of the gardens. Needs tidying, but not impossible This is a reliable source for the layout, and it gives the name of South Square. If you think the name of the other square needs referencing, the Ted Smart (2003) Nicholson Greater London Street Atlas 15th edition published by Nicholson isbn 0583332919 p274 names both squares. I'm not sure it's necessary though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Okie-dokes, I'll fix that this evening. Ironholds (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Belay that, you did it. Thanks! :). Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) ??? I don't think so - I made some minor tweaks, but not this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Wait, sorry, wasn't thinking clearly; my mind was still stuck on "I have to identify the squares in the images". Right, will do that tomorrow. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Right, done. Ironholds (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK, I've reworded slightly and added the ref, not so much because it's necessary for verification, but because the graphic is so helpful in visualising the Inns. I have no further serious issues, so I've changed to support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks for the comments :). Sorry it took me so long to deal with. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Decline 4/1c : confused coverage 1c. Five minutes in Google Scholar provided: The Rise of the Barristers: A Social History of the English Bar 1590–1640. By Wilfrid R. Prest. [Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1986. xvi, 326, (Appendices) 93 and (Index) 22 pp. Hardback £35·00 net.] ; Images and Cultures of Law in Early Modern England: Justice and Political Power, 1558–1660, by Paul Raffield (Cambridge: Cambridge U.P., 2004; pp. 289. £50). This makes me doubt your characterisation of recent literature as non existent. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, I looked at them; Prest's book is actually in my bookmarks (in the folder "Inns"). They're just of little use. For charting the evolution of barristers and the Inns of Court generally they'd be a great help, yes, and getting the central article on the Inns of Court to FA is on my to-do list, but they're not much use for Gray's Inn specific stuff. I've tried to provide some wider context involving things that affected all the Inns of Court, but the inclusion of a general history and evolution of the Bar is of no use when describing Gray's Inn as an institution. The coverage of Gray's Inn within the book is limited; see this search for evidence. If you were looking to upbraid me on my use of sourcing, btw, you forgot Gentlemen and barristers: the Inns of Court and the English bar, 1680-1730 by David Lemmings :p. Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ta, but there's general social history in the current article not connected to Gray's Inn in particular, but the institution of barristers and the legal profession in general. See §Elizabeth¶2. So I'm kind of asking for why some generalised social history is important in Gray's, but not all. Though I think you handle the difference between the building and the institution well. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused; when you say "why is there some generalised social history in Gray's, but not all" - where's the generalised social history? There's some commentary on the system of education, but I put that in to provide some kind of context to the reader; otherwise it appears that Gray's Inn was just... there for about eight hundred years, and didn't really do much. I can cut it down if you'd prefer. Ironholds (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Elizabeth¶2-3, Caroline¶2 seem generic to all the Inns. Caroline¶2 is confusing: is it about Gray's or everyone? Elizabeth¶2-3 could be fixed with context, "Central to Gray's was the system shared across the Inns of Court of movement towards a call to the bar: [educational ranking]". If you limited the context of these sections, I'd be happier about 4/1c. If you're going to keep it expansive, then I'm expecting stuff on how the Inns of Court in general (and Gray's as an instance) influenced the general social / institutional history? If you can call your limits better, and clarify if Caroline¶2 is about Gray's or everyone, and contextualise these floaty paragraphs in terms of their importance to Gray's then the issue of social history dissolves, and the article is no longer fringing 4 (no irrelevance), and is clear with 1c (fully researched for its scope, the context stuff won't offer the broader scope issue of general social history of Inns of Court and their influence in the UK). Greatly look forward to seeing your article on the Inns of Court system to FA. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Greatly look forward to getting it there! Just to clarify; the ¶ sign is referring to paragraphs? It isn't a use I've seen before. If so, I'll get right on it tomorrow evening (long day of financial and equitable law lectures ahead. Ack.) Ironholds (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, yeah. Pilcrow (¶) is often used to denote paragraphs. § for sections. Its not a severe 1c, its more that your context is not constrained properly. I check back articles through the FA process, so don't worry about urgency. Good luck with your lectures (Students in the 21st century seemed to attend lectures less due to the availability of textbooks... :) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  What an original thought! :p. I find my textbooks are only of use to boost what I do in lectures; can't have one without the other. That being said my supervisor when I worked at a solicitors firm taught herself her LLB and ended up getting a 2:1, so I guess it is possible. Ironholds (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  Outdent: Right, I need some help here. I've got no idea how to do what you're asking of me; I clarified here, but other than that I'm at a loose end as to how to achieve your goals. Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  "] From 1640 onwards no readings were held, and barristers such as Sir Edward Coke remarked at the time that the quality of education at the Inns of Court had decreased.[30] " Do you mean at Grays or in general (this is the last problem para by the way for me). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ooh, brill. I've changed it to make it clear (a problem endemic to all the Inns). Wording might need tweaks. Ironholds (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  Needs a tweak at the front of that para and in the second sentence (first sentence of exposition) to cue the reader that the entire para is about all inns, (and thus also Grays). Change to support. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3

• File:1stEarlOfBirkenhead.jpg - Source link is broken, date is missing, and author is unclear. The license is claiming PD on the grounds of "life of the author plus 70 years", but the name and death date of the author are missing. Only a firm is listed.

• All these problems still exist. I'm confused. Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Still not done. Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:Gray Inn Badge.jpg - The license claims PD on the grounds of "life of the author plus 100 years". However, we don't have a death date for the author of the image. Please add this information. If it cannot be found, you can change the license to PD-1923.
• I would also like to suggest moving images to Commons that can be moved.

These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Will do the first one; the second one is more common sense. It was in a book published in 1848. That's over 160 years ago. Really, 75 works better; I suppose simply changing the tag isn't enough? Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed the first one. See my query about the second. Ironholds (talk) 10:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that we actually have to have the information to back up the tag - it's that niggly legal stuff (I'm sure you read something about that for this article!). Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh [stereotypical British cutesy like "blast"]. Authors are so inconsiderate with their failure to provide licensing information for used images. I've got no idea of who did the thing (a woodcut, I think?) so I've just had to remove it. Bit of a pity. Ironholds (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• As I said above, if you can't find the author information, you can change the license to PD-1923 and still use it. Please fix the first image! Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done :). Ironholds (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The first image is still not fixed. Awadewit (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Outdent: Right, sorry, misunderstood. Removing the first image (can't find the information), keeping the second with updated info. There we are. This FAC business is complimecated. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:EMDASHes are unspaced on Wiki; alternately, spaced WP:ENDASHes can be used. This article currently has a mixture of four different types of dashes in the text: spaced emdashes, unspaced emdashes, spaced endashes and even hyphens. The choices on Wiki are spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes; please choose one and standardize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed; should all be spaced longer dashes, except when the MOS demands unspaced (giving dates in years, without any kind of month or day, for example). Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  On a quick glance, I still see a hyphen, and the article still has spaced WP:EMDASHes, which are not used on Wiki. They need to be unspaced emdashes, or spaced WP:ENDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Switched over to unspaced emdashes, but I can't find the hyphen to save my life. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The {{main}} template is used when this article is a summary of the templated article; please review the use of main templates, as it appears that some of them might be switched to further or see also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Could you be more specific about which templates need to be changed? Sorry to be a bother, but I'm not really getting the difference between this being a summary and a "main article" link. Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  For example, is the "Role" section truly a summary of Main articles: Barristers in England and Wales and Inns of Court SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Ahh, I see what you mean; I thought you were saying "the Role section is a summary of.." rather than querying it. Is "see also", for example, an appropriate replacement template? Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Whichever template you think best, but be consistent throughout the article. (left a note above about the dash fixing still needed, in case you miss the interim edit.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done, although I've left "members" as a "main article" linking to "list of members of Gray's Inn", if that's alright. Ironholds (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see WP:OTHERDATE and WP:MOSDATE#Precise language regarding use of date ranges that include "to the present"; these should be rephrased to something more precise, like since <year>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  Fixed; changed to "to 2009". Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Conversions were also missing, they were WP:MOSNUM issues, and there were some incorrect WP:HYPHENs as well, but Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) is on the job. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I got everything. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.