Talk:Case of the Dean of St Asaph/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "Shipley was tried in 1784 by Mr Justice Buller and a special jury at Shrewsbury". In what way was the jury special?
 * Specially convened, as in put together just for this case; now clarified. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We're told right at the end of the Trial and appeal section that Shipley was released, but never that he was arrested. Do we know where he was held, what sentence was handed down at his trial?
 * Afraid not; the problem with cases like this is that they're primarily lauded due to the skill of Erskine, which means some details are a bit thin on the ground. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we not know the date of this trial, other than in the summer of 1784 (which I changed to mid-1784 as per the MoS)?
 * Not in the sources I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This source claims that the trial took place on 6 August, and as it appears to be by Shipley himself it's probably reliable. Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooh, hadn't seen that; now added. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Trial and appeal
 * "... but that it was the foundation of Pitt's reform bill". Should that not be "Reform Bill"?
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * " ... Buller's statement had misdirected the jury, and that as the jury had not had the right to investigate Shipley's actual guilt ...". That doesn't seem quite right to me. Clearly Erskine and many others believed that the jury did have that right.
 * How about something like "...and that as the jury was traditionally not given the right to investigate..."? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "... a jury should be permitted to determine not only whether a statement was published, but whether it was libellous in the first place". Could we drop that "in the first place"? As opposed to the second, third, fourth places?
 * Would "...but whether it was libellous at all" work? Or do you mean that there should be no qualifier there at all? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Aftermath
 * "... without it, H. M. Lubasz writes ...". A word or two describing who Lubasz is (a historian?) might be a good idea.
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this article meets the GA criteria, but the minimal use of Shipley's own account of the proceedings (he would certainly have known the details of his incarceration and sentence) would be a significant impediment at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)