Wikipedia:Peer review/Court of Common Pleas (England)/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm looking to stick it up at FAC soon.
Brief comment: This looks interesting, as was Gray's Inn a year ago.I will try to give it a detailed look-over, but that might take a few days. Here are a couple of points that can be dealt with meantime:-
- Civil law links to a disambiguation page
- The caption to the lead image needs to be more informative – it is not just a picture of the court at work. Tell us a little about the depiction.
Further comments: I have heard of the Court of Common Pleas, but never really knew what it was, so I was interested to read this article. Here are some issues for consideration:-
- General point: rather too many legal terms requiring the use of a link, which disrupts the reading process. Is it possible to introduce a bit more explanation into the article?
- The first paragraph of the article should state the specific function of the court (actions between subject and subject, which did not concern the king). At present this information does not appear until paragraph two. Also, the first paragraph is too long and discursive, and needs to be split.
- Suggested rephrasing: "...considered the "lock and key of the common law" by Sir Edward Coke" → "...considered by Sir Edward Coke to be the 'lock and key of the common law'". (your choice, however).
- When was "originally"?
- "...a descendant of the witenagemot" - a brief explanation, as well as the link, is advisable.
- What is meant by "fixed paths"? Does it meansStandard rules?
- "at certain times" - does this mean intermittently, ad hoc, or at fixed set times?
- Overlong sentence: that beginning "This was originally interpreted..." needs to be split at some point.
- "better access" → "greater access"?
- Rather than saying that "legal historians have come to a different conclusion" etc, I would reword "...legal historians have concluded that Common Pleas arose out of the Exchequer of Pleas, another body split from the curia regis, rather than being created out of the curia regis directly."
- Bridgeman should be introduced, rather than making readers use the link to find out who he was.
- Struggle with the King's Bench
- "...and similar courts" - a little vague?
- "for good reason" reads POVishly
- You say that Common Pleas became "increasingly conservative in its attempts to avoid ceding cases". I'm not sure what "conservative" implies in this context. Perhaps "determined" wouold be better?
- The following sentence begins "This was limited..." What is "this"?
- "best illustrated" - POV?
- "claims seeking the repayment of a debt or other matters..." ambiguous unless repunctuated.
- a "more revolutionary court"? Perhaps "more progressive"? Or end the sentence with "less ractionary court".
- "Interregnum" needs explaining, not just linking
- Whose is the quote beginning ""then the very attorneys..."? I am afraid that I lost the thread of the argument in this paragraph.
- Unity and dissolution
- Any reason why Broughton's complaint needs to be expresed at such length, rather than paraphrased?
- "...but did not go to the trouble of..." Again, the phrasing is non-encyclopedic, tending to POV
- "The existence of the same courts under one unified head was a quirk of constitutional law, which prevented the compulsory demotion or retirement of Chief Justices." Sorry, I don't follow what this means.
- The quote beginning "was the court which more than any other" needs to be attributed as well as cited.
- I have no particular issues with this section, other than to reiterate the need to explain legal terms rather than just dropping them in with a link. Thus "oyer and terminer", Custos Brevium, "recognizances" etc. Better-known terms such as "Habeus Corpus" should still be linked, though I think no further explanation need be offered here.
I hope these comments are helpful. I am not able to watch peer reviews at present, so please contact me via my talkpage if you hae any points to discuss, arising from this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Just a quick comment... you want to get ahold of Ralph Turner's article "The Origins of Common Pleas and the King's Bench" which appeared in the American Journal of Legal History volume 21 (1977) pp. 238-254. He goes more into depth with The English Judiciary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton and The King and his Courts. Note that Robert Bartlett England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings pp. 191-192 dates the hiving off of the Court of Common Pleas to the 1190s. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)